Home/CVE/Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD
CVE

CVE-2026-45446

Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD

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.

MEDIUM · CVSS 4.8 EPSS 0.00012
Monitor
  • No active-exploitation, high-EPSS, or public-exploit signals - routine patching cadence
Sigma rules0 YARA rules0
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-45446, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

ATT&CK techniques

1

Techniques this CVE enables - linked via CWECAPECATT&CK. High◆ = named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei templates.

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

CAPEC attack patterns

1

Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.

Weakness Classification

📦

Fixed versions by distribution

22
The package version that resolves this CVE on each Linux distribution, from the vendor’s published security data. fixed in shows a patched version exists; open means the package is listed as affected with no fix yet.
alpine edgeopenssl fixed in 3.5.7-r0
rhel 9openssl open
rhel 9openssl-devel open
rhel 9openssl-libs open
rhel 9openssl-perl open
suse sle15libopenssl-1_0_0-devel open
suse sle15libopenssl-1_1-devel open
suse sle15libopenssl-1_1-devel-32bit open
suse sle15libopenssl-devel open
suse sle15libopenssl-fips-provider open
suse sle15libopenssl10 open
suse sle15libopenssl1_0_0 open
suse sle15libopenssl1_0_0-hmac open
suse sle15libopenssl1_1 open
suse sle15libopenssl1_1-32bit open
suse sle15libopenssl1_1-hmac open
suse sle15libopenssl1_1-hmac-32bit open
suse sle15openssl open
suse sle15openssl-1_0_0 open
suse sle15openssl-1_1 open
suse sle15openssl-1_1-livepatches open
suse sle15openssl-3-livepatches open

Scoring & Timeline

4.8
MEDIUM · CVSS v3.1 · [email protected]
View on NVD
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
Published to NVD09 Jun 2026 · 05:17 PM
CVSS VectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
SSVC triage · cisa-vulnrichment
Exploitation
none
Automatable
no
Technical impact
partial
SSVC asks the questions that actually drive patch urgency: is it being exploited, can attacks be automated, and how total is the impact.

Vendor Advisories

4
SOC and Response
CVE triage
Stack monitoring
Am I affected
IOC triage
KEV catalog
Daily brief
Change tracking
Detection Engineering
Coverage workspace
Detection coverage
Coverage check
Telemetry ceiling
SIEM query builder
Sigma rules
SIEM rules
YARA rules
Network rules
D3FEND
Threat Hunting
Threat actors
ATT&CK techniques
Attack paths
Indicators
Atomic tests
Red Team and Pentest
Exploitability triage
Recon pack
Attack paths
CAPEC patterns
Adversary emulation
Compliance and GRC
Framework mapping
Control assessment
Audit view
Coverage report
Atlas Search Threat actors Techniques Tools & malware CWE CAPEC KEV catalog Package vulns TAXII feed Data sources
About All capabilities Pricing API docs Live statistics Live status Privacy policy Terms of service
threatengine.sh