CVE-2026-103297
Adobe C2Pa ≤ 0.91.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), epss.first.org. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-103297 is a high-severity Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (CWE-347) vulnerability in Adobe C2Pa. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Invalid Code Signature (T1036.001); ranked at the 40th 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 SC-13 (Cryptographic Protection) and SC-23 (Session Authenticity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-100737
Vulnerability Data
CAI Content Credentials is affected by an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue…
more
does not require user interaction.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
MITRE ATT&CK v20.0
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5)
Our mappings, made for this CVE.
Requiring cryptographic protection mechanisms forces correct signature verification to be implemented for data protection.
Protecting session authenticity requires correct verification of cryptographic signatures or equivalent mechanisms.
Mandating integrity verification tools directly requires proper cryptographic signature checking to detect unauthorized changes.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0)
Our mappings, derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our CWE→CSF cross-walk — links open the control.
Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-at-rest, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.
Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-in-transit, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.
Requires assessing authenticity and integrity of acquired assets, which commonly relies on signature verification but is limited to pre-acquisition.
Secure SDLC practices include code signing and signature verification requirements, addressing the weakness during development.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A)
Our mappings, derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our CWE→ISO cross-walk — links open the control.
A.8.24 mandates approved cryptographic solutions and usage practices, which can require signature verification in code the organization writes, but the actual prevention of the code defect (calling or correctly using a verification API) depends on implementation rigor and does not reach third-party components or code that misuses approved cryptographic libraries.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over our cross-walk; rows rated `none` are excluded, and each rule says how its mapping was checked.
Definition changed on 29 October 2026. Until then this section listed every rule rated above none, partial included. From that date it lists rules whose mapping is rated full or mostly and checked at llm_unverified or higher; partial mappings show when you ask.
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. blocks CWE-347
- V-271523 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of locally installed software packages before installation. blocks CWE-347
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
- V-204448 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230264 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. blocks CWE-347
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257822 RHEL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. blocks CWE-347