BC-FJA: Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
CVE-2026-13505 is a high-severity missing release of resource after effective lifetime vulnerability in BC-FJA from Legion of the Bouncy Castle, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.7 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 1.0.2.7, 2.0.2, 2.1.3 as the first without the flaw, so updating BC-FJA to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.43% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update BC-FJA to 1.0.2.7 or 2.0.2 or 2.1.3, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legion of the Bouncy Castle | BC-FJA | 1.0.0 up to, but not including, 1.0.2.7; 2.0.0 up to, but not including, 2.0.2; 2.1.0 up to, but not including, 2.1.3 | 1.0.2.7, 2.0.2, 2.1.3 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: 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/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:Amber. Scored by CNA.
Official description
In 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), sensitive key material held by the AES and DESede engines, the SP 800-90A DRBGs, SymmetricSecretKey and the PBKD and scrypt parameter classes was zeroised on garbage collection by overriding Object.finalize. Finalization runs at an unspecified time and in an unspecified order and is serviced by a single finalizer thread, so where objects carrying a finalizer are allocated faster than that thread retires them the pending-finalization queue grows without bound: disposal falls arbitrarily far behind, which can contribute to an OutOfMemoryError under load, and the key material those objects hold stays resident in the heap for as long as they are queued, defeating the purpose of the zeroisation. The behaviour was not a problem on Java 8 or Java 11; it is later JVMs, on which finalization has been deprecated and progressively de-emphasised, where it becomes one. Disposal of these classes now runs from a java.lang.ref.Cleaner registered in the multi-release jdk1.9 overlay, so on Java 9 and later it no longer depends on the finalizer being scheduled. Bouncy Castle for Java (bcprov) and Bouncy Castle for Java LTS are not affected, as neither implements the finalizer-based zeroisation scheme.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, languages such as Java, Ruby, and Lisp perform automatic garbage collection that releases memory for objects that have been deallocated.
- It is good practice to be responsible for freeing all resources you allocate and to be consistent with how and where you free resources in a function. If you allocate resources that you intend to free upon completion of the function, you must be sure to free the resources at all exit points for that function including error conditions.
More Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime vulnerabilities (CWE-772)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in BC-FJA
- 8.2 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime vulnerabilities
- 7.7 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.