CVE detail
CVE-2026-45446
Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
Buzz score
Why this CVE is surfacing
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 20.8 · diversity 15.0 · KEV 0.0 · OTX 0.0 · PoC 0.0
Why it matters now
Mention timeline
- Total mentions
- 0
- within the 30d window
- Peak daily
- 0
- highest bucket
Evidence
Source links by recency
7 source links · newest first
- CVE-2026-45446 Incorrect Tag Processing for Empty Messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV modesMicrosoft MSRC
Information published.
vendormsrc.microsoft.comJun 13, 2026, 8:04 AM - https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txtopenssl-library.org
No excerpt available.
Vendor Advisoryopenssl-library.orgJun 9, 2026, 5:17 PM No excerpt available.
Exploitgithub.comJun 9, 2026, 5:17 PMNo excerpt available.
Exploitgithub.comJun 9, 2026, 5:17 PMNo excerpt available.
Exploitgithub.comJun 9, 2026, 5:17 PMNo excerpt available.
Exploitgithub.comJun 9, 2026, 5:17 PMNo excerpt available.
Exploitgithub.comJun 9, 2026, 5:17 PM
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
Related records
Similar CVEs
6 related CVEs with shared weakness or product evidence
- CVE-2026-45445CVSS 7.5 · High
Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently di…
- CVE-2026-42770CVSS 3.7 · Low
Issue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership. Impact summary: A maliciou…
- CVE-2025-69418CVSS 4.0 · Medium
Issue summary: When using the low-level OCB API directly with AES-NI or<br>other hardware-accelerated code paths, inputs whose length is not a multiple<br>of 16 bytes can leave th…
- CVE-2026-59776CVSS 7.0 · High
Missing Cryptographic Step (CWE-325) vulnerability exists in certain FeliCa IC chips shipped in or before 2017. If the vulnerability is exploited, information stored in the IC chi…
- CVE-2026-58638CVSS 6.0 · Medium
Missing cryptographic step in Windows Boot Loader allows an authorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.
- CVE-2026-55144CVSS 7.1 · High
Missing cryptographic step in Windows CryptoAPI allows an authorized attacker to perform tampering locally.