BC-JAVA: Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
CVE-2026-71888 is a high-severity improper validation of integrity check value vulnerability in BC-JAVA 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 version 1.86 as the first without the flaw, so updating BC-JAVA to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.11% 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-JAVA to 1.86 or a later version.
- Update BC-LTS-JAVA to 2.73.13 or a later version.
- Update BC-FJA to 1.0.13 or 2.0.13 or 2.1.13 or 2.0.8, 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-JAVA | before 1.86; 1.70 up to, but not including, 1.86 | 1.86 |
| Legion of the Bouncy Castle | BC-LTS-JAVA | 2.73.0 up to, but not including, 2.73.13 | 2.73.13 |
| Legion of the Bouncy Castle | BC-FJA | 1.0.0 up to, but not including, 1.0.13; 2.0.0 up to, but not including, 2.0.13; 2.1.0 up to, but not including, 2.1.13; 2.0.0 up to, but not including, 2.0.8; 2.1.0 up to, but not including, 2.1.8 | 1.0.13, 2.0.13, 2.1.13, 2.0.8, 2.1.8 |
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)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo 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:H/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:Amber. Scored by CNA.
Official description
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series).
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or checksums of a message.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- The protocol specification describes the algorithm used for calculating the checksum. It is then a matter of implementing the calculation and verifying that the calculated checksum and the received checksum match.
More Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value vulnerabilities (CWE-354)
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
Patches and release notes
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in BC-JAVA
- 8.2 High severity
- 7.1 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
Recent Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.3 High severity
- 7.4 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.