Overview 13 matches · 11 in Waratek scope · 2 protected · 0 exploited · 0 CISA KEV · 0 public PoC · 0 EPSS ≥ 0.5
13matches
11in Waratek scope84.6%
2protected15.4%
0exploited0.0%
0CISA KEV0.0%
0public PoC0.0%
0EPSS ≥ 0.50.0%
Protected by Waratek
2
15.4%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
9
69.2%
Outside Waratek scope
2
15.4%
Not applicable
0
0.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
2
15.4%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
11
84.6%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
0
0.0%
Working exploit published
0
0.0%
Proof of concept only
0
0.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
13
100.0%
split by
peak 6 / year
20131
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20140
20150
20161
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20170
20184
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope1
Medium4
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked2
No public exploit4
20190
20200
20210
20220
20231
No exploit published1
Medium1
not blocked1
No public exploit1
20240
20250
20266
No exploit published6
Medium6
not blocked6
No public exploit6
2014201620182020202220242026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-59652 | Medium | 2026-08-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, LDAP filter injection in legacy jdk1.4 LDAPStoreHelper. |
| CVE-2026-59648 | Medium | 2026-08-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, OpenPGP Argon2 S2K honours attacker-chosen memory and passes. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series). |
| CVE-2026-59647 | Medium | 2026-08-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, CRMF/CMP password-MAC honours unbounded iteration count. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.12 (1.0.X series), 2.0.12 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.12 (2.1.X series). |
| CVE-2026-58063 | Medium | 2026-08-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, BCFKS keystore load honours unbounded KDF cost from untrusted file. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series). |
| CVE-2026-15055 | Medium | 2026-08-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, PKCS#8 / PBES2 decryptors honour unbounded KDF cost from input. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.12 (1.0.X series), 2.0.12 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.12 (2.1.X series). |
| CVE-2026-13586 | Medium | 2026-08-03 | No exploit published | No public exploit | In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, PKCS#12 MAC and bag-decryption KDF iteration-count bound (DoS). This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series). |
| CVE-2023-33201 | Medium | 2023-07-05 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Bouncy Castle For Java before 1.74 is affected by an LDAP injection vulnerability. The vulnerability only affects applications that use an LDAP CertStore from Bouncy Castle to validate X.509 certificates. During the certificate validation process, Bouncy Castle inserts the certificate's Subject Name into an LDAP search filter without any escaping, which leads to an LDAP injection vulnerability. |
| CVE-2016-1000345 | Medium | 2018-06-04 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the DHIES/ECIES CBC mode vulnerable to padding oracle attack. For BC 1.55 and older, in an environment where timings can be easily observed, it is possible with enough observations to identify when the decryption is failing due to padding. |
| CVE-2016-1000341 | Medium | 2018-06-04 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier DSA signature generation is vulnerable to timing attack. Where timings can be closely observed for the generation of signatures, the lack of blinding in 1.55, or earlier, may allow an attacker to gain information about the signature's k value and ultimately the private value as well. |
| CVE-2016-1000339 | Medium | 2018-06-04 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the primary engine class used for AES was AESFastEngine. Due to the highly table driven approach used in the algorithm it turns out that if the data channel on the CPU can be monitored the lookup table accesses are sufficient to leak information on the AES key being used. There was also a leak in AESEngine although it was substantially less. AESEngine has been modified to remove any signs of leakage (testing carried out on Intel X86-64) and is now the primary AES class for the BC JCE provider from 1.56. Use of AESFastEngine is now only recommended where otherwise deemed appropriate. |
| CVE-2018-5382 | Medium | 2018-04-16 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The default BKS keystore use an HMAC that is only 16 bits long, which can allow an attacker to compromise the integrity of a BKS keystore. Bouncy Castle release 1.47 changes the BKS format to a format which uses a 160 bit HMAC instead. This applies to any BKS keystore generated prior to BC 1.47. For situations where people need to create the files for legacy reasons a specific keystore type "BKS-V1" was introduced in 1.49. It should be noted that the use of "BKS-V1" is discouraged by the library authors and should only be used where it is otherwise safe to do so, as in where the use of a 16 bit checksum for the file integrity check is not going to cause a security issue in itself. |
| CVE-2016-2427 | Medium | 2016-04-18 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | The AES-GCM specification in RFC 5084, as used in Android 5.x and 6.x, recommends 12 octets for the aes-ICVlen parameter field, which might make it easier for attackers to defeat a cryptographic protection mechanism and discover an authentication key via a crafted application, aka internal bug 26234568. NOTE: The vendor disputes the existence of this potential issue in Android, stating "This CVE was raised in error: it referred to the authentication tag size in GCM, whose default according to ASN.1 encoding (12 bytes) can lead to vulnerabilities. After careful consideration, it was decided that the insecure default value of 12 bytes was a default only for the encoding and not default anywhere else in Android, and hence no vulnerability existed. |
| CVE-2013-1624 | Medium | 2013-02-08 | No exploit published | No public exploit | The TLS implementation in the Bouncy Castle Java library before 1.48 and C# library before 1.8 does not properly consider timing side-channel attacks on a noncompliant MAC check operation during the processing of malformed CBC padding, which allows remote attackers to conduct distinguishing attacks and plaintext-recovery attacks via statistical analysis of timing data for crafted packets, a related issue to CVE-2013-0169. |