CVE-2026-2673

HIGHPre-NVD 6.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-03-13. CISA-ADP (Vulnrichment) CVSS v3.1 baseline 6.5; sources differ by 1.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: cisa-adp, epss, ghsa
7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0%CVSS: 6.5Exploit: None knownExposed: 0

A fix is available — apply it.

Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword.

Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server.

If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the 'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported.

As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction).

OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat' list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure. If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been more preferred, if included.

The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares, the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group.

The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the various desired groups and group 'tuples'.

No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies outside the FIPS boundary.

OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue.

OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released.

OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue.

CVSS v3
6.5
EG Score
7.5(medium)
EG Risk
49(Track)
EG Risk 49/100SSVC: Track

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed
Severity75% × 45%
Exploitation0% × 40%
Automatability100% × 15%
Action: Routine — remediate on your standard cadence.
EPSS PROB
0%
EPSS %ILE
36%
KEV
Not listed

Published

March 13, 2026

Last Modified

June 5, 2026

Patch Availability(2)

Vendor / EcosystemFixed in / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntuopenssl-provider-legacy (3.5.3-1ubuntu3.3) @ questing2026-06-12ubuntu
redhatopenssl-main-3.5.6-0.1.hum12026-04-09redhat

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(1)

Vendors that published advisories for this CVE beyond the curated set above. Broader coverage but minimal per-row detail — click through for the original advisory.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 14× in last 7d / 47× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 133 total refreshes for this CVE.

  1. 2026-07-26 14:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-26 14:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-25 14:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-25 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-24 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-23 14:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-23 14:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-23 03:07 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-07-22 14:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-22 14:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-21 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-21 15:24 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-20 17:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-20 17:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-07-19 02:29 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-07-18 10:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-07-18 10:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-07-17 08:46 UTCOSV refresh
  19. 2026-07-16 17:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-07-16 17:03 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-07-15 16:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-07-15 16:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-07-15 02:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-07-15 02:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-07-13 22:30 UTCEPSS rescore
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-07-13 06:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-07-13 06:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-07-12 05:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-07-11 08:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-07-09 19:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  6. 2026-07-08 15:15 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-07-07 13:46 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-07-06 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-07-06 16:27 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-07-06 02:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-07-06 02:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-07-05 02:30 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-07-04 06:31 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-07-01 15:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-06-30 23:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-06-29 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-06-29 14:06 UTCEPSS rescore
  18. 2026-06-29 07:02 UTCOSV refresh
  19. 2026-06-28 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-06-28 14:07 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-06-28 04:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  22. 2026-06-28 04:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  23. 2026-06-27 03:08 UTCEPSS rescore
  24. 2026-06-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  25. 2026-06-25 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  26. 2026-06-24 14:05 UTCEPSS rescore
  27. 2026-06-23 21:33 UTCEPSS rescore
  28. 2026-06-23 21:33 UTCEPSS rescore
  29. 2026-06-22 14:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  30. 2026-06-22 14:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  31. 2026-06-21 14:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  32. 2026-06-21 14:56 UTCEPSS rescore
  33. 2026-06-21 01:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  34. 2026-06-19 19:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  35. 2026-06-19 19:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  36. 2026-06-18 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  37. 2026-06-18 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  38. 2026-06-17 17:53 UTCEPSS rescore
  39. 2026-06-16 17:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  40. 2026-06-15 17:48 UTCEPSS rescore
  41. 2026-06-14 23:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  42. 2026-06-13 23:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  43. 2026-06-12 23:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  44. 2026-06-12 23:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  45. 2026-06-12 00:13 UTCVendor advisory
  46. 2026-06-12 00:13 UTCGHSA enrichment
  47. 2026-06-11 14:00 UTCEPSS rescore
  48. 2026-06-10 22:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  49. 2026-06-10 22:18 UTCEPSS rescore
  50. 2026-06-10 18:23 UTCVendor advisory
  51. 2026-06-10 18:23 UTCGHSA enrichment
  52. 2026-06-10 13:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  53. 2026-06-10 05:58 UTCVendor advisory
  54. 2026-06-10 05:58 UTCGHSA enrichment
  55. 2026-06-09 16:53 UTCVendor advisory
  56. 2026-06-09 16:53 UTCGHSA enrichment
  57. 2026-06-08 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  58. 2026-06-08 14:17 UTCEPSS rescore
  59. 2026-06-08 03:14 UTCVendor advisory
  60. 2026-06-08 03:14 UTCGHSA enrichment
  61. 2026-06-07 15:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  62. 2026-06-07 15:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  63. 2026-06-07 15:25 UTCEPSS rescore
  64. 2026-06-07 14:50 UTCVendor advisory
  65. 2026-06-07 14:50 UTCGHSA enrichment
  66. 2026-06-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  67. 2026-06-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  68. 2026-06-05 22:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  69. 2026-06-05 22:47 UTCEPSS rescore
  70. 2026-06-05 06:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  71. 2026-06-05 06:10 UTCEPSS rescore
  72. 2026-06-04 13:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  73. 2026-06-04 13:12 UTCEPSS rescore
  74. 2026-06-02 20:13 UTCEPSS rescore
  75. 2026-06-02 20:13 UTCEPSS rescore

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-2673?
CVE-2026-2673 is a high vulnerability published on March 13, 2026. Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is…
When was CVE-2026-2673 disclosed?
CVE-2026-2673 was first published in the National Vulnerability Database on March 13, 2026, with the most recent update on June 5, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-2673 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-2673 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the top 64.4% of all scored CVEs.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-2673?
CVE-2026-2673 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.5 (CISA-ADP / Vulnrichment enrichment; NVD's own analysis pending). EchelonGraph synthesises NVD + CISA KEV + FIRST EPSS + GHSA into a combined EG score of 7.5.
How do I remediate CVE-2026-2673?
Patch to the fixed version published by the affected vendor. Where vendor advisories exist for CVE-2026-2673, EchelonGraph cross-links them in the Vendor Advisories panel below — those typically contain the canonical remediation steps, fixed version numbers, and any vendor-specific mitigations.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-2673

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-2673?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.