CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-33894NVD status: Modified

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in…

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-33894 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in forge from Digitalbazaar, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected forge versions: < 1.4.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.49% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of forge you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
Digitalbazaarforge< 1.4.0Not stated
Red HatRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 9Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatCluster Observability Operator 1.5.0Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Developer Hub 1.8Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Developer Hub 1.9Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.10Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.12Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.14Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.15Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.16Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.17Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Quay 3.9Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatCryostat 4Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatLogging Subsystem for Red Hat OpenShiftNot specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat build of Apache Camel - HawtIO 4Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat build of Apicurio Registry 2Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Build of Podman DesktopNot specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Data Grid 8Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 10Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 8Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Enterprise Linux 9Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Fuse 7Not specified in the recordNot stated
Red HatRed Hat Process Automation 7Not specified in the recordNot stated

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.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
NoneNo data is disclosed.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
NoneAvailability is not affected.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N. Scored by CNA (github.com).

Scoring systemScoreSeverityScored by
CVSS 3.17.5HighCNA (github.com)
CVSS 3.17.5HighCNA

Official description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.4.0, RSASSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification accepts forged signatures for low public exponent keys (e=3). Attackers can forge signatures by stuffing “garbage” bytes within the ASN structure in order to construct a signature that passes verification, enabling Bleichenbacher style forgery. This issue is similar to CVE-2022-24771, but adds bytes in an addition field within the ASN structure, rather than outside of it. Additionally, forge does not validate that signatures include a minimum of 8 bytes of padding as defined by the specification, providing attackers additional space to construct Bleichenbacher forgeries. Version 1.4.0 patches the issue.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Third-party and government advisories

Other vulnerabilities in forge

All forge vulnerabilities

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.