Skip to main content

CVE detail

CVE-2026-2673

Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server. If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the 'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported. As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction). OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat' list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure. If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been more preferred, if included. The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares, the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group. The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the various desired groups and group 'tuples'. No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies outside the FIPS boundary. OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue.

CVSS 6.5 · MediumBuzz score 42.0

Buzz score

Why this CVE is surfacing

Buzz score total 42.0

This all-time snapshot uses the same composite formula as Trending across a 30-year evidence window, rather than a current rolling window.

Buzz score components · mention 22.0 · diversity 20.0 · KEV 0.0 · OTX 0.0 · PoC 0.0
Mention score
22.0
8 evidence mentions in the snapshot
Diversity score
20.0
6 sources across 4 categories
KEV score
0.0
No KEV entry observed
OTX score
0.0
0 OTX pulses
PoC score
0.0
0 repos · best confidence N/A
Best PoC traction
0
Maximum stars on a matched PoC repo

Why it matters now

Mention timeline

Total mentions
0
within the 30d window
Peak daily
0
highest bucket

Evidence

Source links by recency

Newest mentions first
8 source links · newest first

Exploit code

Public exploit repository references

Public PoC repositories are third-party, potentially unsafe artifacts. Treat their code as untrusted and use it only on authorized systems in an isolated, least-privilege environment. cvebuzz does not execute the code or verify that an exploit works.

0 repository references · best confidence N/A · max 0 stars
No public PoC repositories have been matched yet.

Related records

Similar CVEs

6 related CVEs with shared weakness or product evidence