CVE-2026-85515

HIGHPre-NVD 8.28.2
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

This high-severity CVE scores 8.2 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.2% (4th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.

Triggered by: Headline CVSS from a secondary CVSS source
Sources: EPSS, a secondary CVSS source

Also known asEUVD-2026-91988 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

8.2EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 8.2Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer's integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API.

CVSS
8.2
EG Score
8.2HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
37
EG Risk 37/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity82% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.2 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
4th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
8.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 3, 2026

Last Modified

October 6, 2026

Advisory Details (2)

Auto-updated Oct 3, 2026
Patch available. Sources: github_commit.
GitHub commit

commit ab7a235d1c20 (bcgit/bc-java)

Fix landed in bcgit/bc-java commit ab7a235d1c20 — awaiting tagged release

https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/ab7a235d1c20e3da28ce77167a96b5c14025efa7
Web page

CVE‐2026‐85515 · bcgit/bc-java Wiki · GitHub

https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9085515

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-85515(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
bouncycastle1.72-2 ... 1.86-1 (6 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
bouncycastle1.80-3, 1.86-1
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
bouncycastle1.80-3
  • every version up to 1.86-1: fixed in 1.86-1
—

Weakness Classification(2)

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

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 9× in last 7d / 36× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-12 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  2. 2026-11-11 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  3. 2026-11-11 03:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  4. 2026-11-10 17:42 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  5. 2026-11-10 17:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  6. 2026-11-10 16:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  7. 2026-11-09 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  8. 2026-11-08 16:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  9. 2026-11-07 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  10. 2026-11-06 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  11. 2026-11-05 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  12. 2026-11-04 16:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  13. 2026-11-03 20:21 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  14. 2026-11-03 20:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  15. 2026-11-03 16:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  16. 2026-11-02 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  17. 2026-11-01 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  18. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  19. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  20. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  21. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  22. 2026-10-27 21:10 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  23. 2026-10-27 21:10 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  24. 2026-10-27 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  25. 2026-10-26 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
Show 64 more
  1. 2026-10-25 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  2. 2026-10-25 13:55 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  3. 2026-10-24 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  4. 2026-10-23 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  5. 2026-10-22 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  6. 2026-10-22 11:35 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  7. 2026-10-22 11:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  8. 2026-10-21 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  9. 2026-10-20 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  10. 2026-10-20 07:30 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  11. 2026-10-20 07:30 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  12. 2026-10-19 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  13. 2026-10-18 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  14. 2026-10-18 03:05 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  15. 2026-10-17 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  16. 2026-10-16 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  17. 2026-10-15 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  18. 2026-10-14 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  19. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  20. 2026-10-13 05:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  21. 2026-10-13 05:27 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  22. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  23. 2026-10-12 14:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  24. 2026-10-12 02:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  25. 2026-10-11 19:17 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  26. 2026-10-11 16:34 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  27. 2026-10-11 14:23 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  28. 2026-10-11 13:51 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  29. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  30. 2026-10-11 02:34 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  31. 2026-10-11 02:34 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  32. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  33. 2026-10-10 14:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  34. 2026-10-10 02:56 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  35. 2026-10-10 02:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  36. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  37. 2026-10-09 15:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  38. 2026-10-09 03:17 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  39. 2026-10-08 15:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  40. 2026-10-08 02:18 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  41. 2026-10-08 02:18 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  42. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  43. 2026-10-07 14:30 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  44. 2026-10-07 02:41 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  45. 2026-10-07 02:41 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  46. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  47. 2026-10-06 14:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  48. 2026-10-06 07:13 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  49. 2026-10-05 19:25 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  50. 2026-10-05 19:25 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  51. 2026-10-05 18:26 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  52. 2026-10-05 18:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  53. 2026-10-05 17:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  54. 2026-10-05 08:40 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  55. 2026-10-05 08:40 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  56. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  57. 2026-10-04 20:51 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  58. 2026-10-04 09:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  59. 2026-10-03 21:14 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  60. 2026-10-03 21:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v · GitHub severity HIGH
  61. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 4th percentile
  62. 2026-10-03 09:25 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  63. 2026-10-03 08:31 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 8.2 HIGH
  64. 2026-10-03 08:29 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-85515?
CVE-2026-85515 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 3, 2026. In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-85515 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-85515 was published on October 3, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 6, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-85515 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-85515 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (4th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-85515?
CVE-2026-85515 has a CVSS base score of 8.2 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-85515?
A fix for CVE-2026-85515 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-85515 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-85515

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-85515?

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