`CVE-2026-71892`

Severity	6.9 Medium CVSS 4.0
Weakness	CWE-697
Published	3 Oct 2026
Updated	6 Oct 2026

Published 41 days ago. NVD often adds the list of affected products days or weeks after a CVE is published, and the other sources we check lag too. The scope and status here may change.

Description

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).

Exploitation status

No public exploit

No exploit has been reported in the sources we check.

CISA KEV not listed
VulnCheck KEV not listed
CISA Vulnrichment exploitation: none
Indexed PoC none indexed
EPSS 0.17% chance in 30 days

Waratek protection

No exploit published

Within Waratek scope. In the sources we check, nobody has published exploit code for this CVE or reported it being exploited.

A public code fix exists: bcgit/bc-java be0a7d9.

Protection none
Action unverified
Review automated Upstream data
Record active

Decided by	Medium or Low severity, no CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, no PoC clearing the evidence bar, no CISA verdict, no Oracle advisory
Finding	This CVE is MEDIUM severity, is not listed in CISA KEV or VulnCheck KEV, has no public exploit or PoC in any indexed source, carries no CISA Vulnrichment finding of a demonstrated exploit, and is not part of an Oracle Critical Patch Update. None of the signals that would put it in front of an engineer is present, and the volume of CVEs below that bar is too great to take one at a time, so no rule is written for it. This is a decision about what we act on, not a finding that the CVE is harmless — a patch may well be derivable, and a low-severity defect can still be one link in a longer chain.
Candidate fix	https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3 : a commit: the change itself

Decided by

Medium or Low severity, no CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, no PoC clearing the evidence bar, no CISA verdict, no Oracle advisory

Finding

This CVE is MEDIUM severity, is not listed in CISA KEV or VulnCheck KEV, has no public exploit or PoC in any indexed source, carries no CISA Vulnrichment finding of a demonstrated exploit, and is not part of an Oracle Critical Patch Update. None of the signals that would put it in front of an engineer is present, and the volume of CVEs below that bar is too great to take one at a time, so no rule is written for it. This is a decision about what we act on, not a finding that the CVE is harmless — a patch may well be derivable, and a low-severity defect can still be one link in a longer chain.

Candidate fix

https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3 : a commit: the change itself

References

URL	Tags
https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3	commit
https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9071892

URL

Timeline

Published	2026-10-03	By the CVE Program.
NVD record modified	2026-10-06	NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

Published

2026-10-03

By the CVE Program.

NVD record modified

2026-10-06

NVD's own last-modified date for this record.

How VRT decided (18 of 24 rules ran)

18 of 24 rules ran. The rest didn't run because an earlier rule had already settled the CVE.

# Rule Outcome Status Detail

identity: Does this identifier describe a vulnerability at all? the first rule that matches decides

1 rejected no match CVE Program withdrawal of this identifier

scope: Is it a vulnerability Waratek protects? the first rule that matches decides

2 armr-patch-file no match An ARMR patch file on disk for this CVE

3 armr-secure-rule-file no match An ARMR security-rule template on disk for this CVE

4 manual-classification no match A researcher's recorded decision for this specific CVE

5 manual classification no match Manual classification of this CVE in the legacy dataset

6 non-java-upstream no match A root cause in non-Java code: an OS kernel, a C library, or a bundled runtime

7 oracle-component no match The defect being in a component of a tracked product the agent does not reach: JavaFX, the Java SE installer, the JInitiator browser plug-in, the native WebLogic proxy plug-in, or a native part of Oracle Application Server or Collaboration Suite (HTTP Server, Web Cache, Internet Directory, mail and calendar servers). Oracle gives these no CPE of their own and names them only in the description.

8 java-client-side no match Oracle's own risk-matrix note saying the CVE is reached only through untrusted code in the Java sandbox (applets, Web Start) or only through a client installation of Java, so a server running its own trusted code is not exposed

9 osv-maven no match An OSV.dev record of this CVE affecting a package published to Maven Central. When every such package is one business applications do not use (Minecraft mods and launchers, Fastjson) and no tracked product is named by CPE, it settles the CVE as Outside Waratek scope instead

10 cna-maven-package matched In scope CNA declares the affected component is a Maven artifact

11 known-cpe-product not reached An NVD CPE naming a product ARMR tracks

12 cna-cpe-product not reached A CPE the CNA published naming a tracked product. Oracle publishes these on advisory day, months before NVD.

13 oracle-advisory-family not reached A tracked product family named in Oracle's own risk matrix. CPE cannot carry a suite name, only a module.

14 cna-named-product not reached A tracked product named in words by the CVE's own CNA, on a record with no CPE yet. Apache and Eclipse publish these on advisory day, before NVD adds CPE data.

15 non-deployable-product not reached The only affected product being a sealed appliance image, where Java runs but no -javaagent can be attached

16 unmatched-product not reached No tracked product matched above, and none present at all

disposition: What do we do about one that is? every rule runs

17 patch-hint matched Mitigation candidate References include candidate fix URL (commit tier): https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/be0a7d925c818ef2f338bcec55178b9b6336dfc3

18 open-source-maven skipped The affected package being open source on Maven, so the fix can be read

19 poc-derivable skipped An indexed exploit clearing the evidence bar to reverse-engineer, where there is no source to read

20 no-exploit skipped Nothing to build a rule from yet: no published exploit, no CISA record of exploitation and no source-level change to read

21 secure-rule-match no match A vulnerability class already blocked by an ARMR security rule

22 exploited-no-fix-or-poc skipped Somebody exploiting this CVE (a CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, or a CISA verdict of active exploitation), with no fix, source code or PoC to build a rule from

23 below-action-threshold decided it matched No exploit published MEDIUM severity, no CISA or VulnCheck KEV listing, no public PoC clearing the evidence bar, no CISA exploitation finding, and not in an Oracle advisory — none of the signals we act on is present.

24 no-exploit-published skipped Exploit code for this candidate, published in a reviewed catalogue or a GitHub repository with 5 or more stars, or in use per CISA or VulnCheck; not only a CISA verdict, a forecast, or nothing at all

NVD ↗ · CVE.org ↗