CVE-2026-10097
Wolfssl 5.7.0 – 5.9.2
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-10097 is a high-severity Incorrect Comparison (CWE-697) vulnerability in Wolfssl Wolfssl. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 17th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-39553
Vulnerability Data
wolfSSL's AVX2-optimized ML-KEM implementation (mlkem_cmp_avx2) compares only 1536 of the 1568 ciphertext bytes during the Fujisaki-Okamoto re-encryption check in ML-KEM-1024 decapsulation. Ciphertexts that differ from the expected re-encryption solely in bytes 1536-1567 bypass implicit rejection and are accepted as valid,…
more
breaking IND-CCA2 security. An attacker able to submit chosen ciphertexts to a decapsulation oracle that uses a static ML-KEM-1024 key, and to observe whether the genuine shared secret or the implicit-rejection secret was produced, can use this as a plaintext-checking oracle to recover the private key. A proof of concept recovered a full ML-KEM-1024 private key with approximately 98% success using roughly 350 chosen ciphertexts. The flaw is a deterministic logic error and does not rely on timing measurements.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly exercises security-relevant comparisons to discover incorrect logic.
A reference monitor must be small and correct, structurally limiting the chance of flawed comparison logic in authorization decisions.
Security engineering principles require correct implementation of comparison logic used for access and authentication decisions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development lifecycle includes code review and testing that can catch incorrect comparison logic.
Application security requirements can mandate correct comparison logic for security decisions.
Secure architecture principles can require robust comparison mechanisms for access decisions.
Secure coding standards directly address avoiding incorrect comparison operators and logic.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-697, a pillar-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.