CVE-2026-10512
Wolfssl 5.6.4 – 5.9.2
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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-2026-10512 is a low-severity Incorrect Calculation (CWE-682) vulnerability in Wolfssl Wolfssl. Its CVSS base score is 2.3 (Low).
Operationally, ranked at the 38th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-39552
Vulnerability Data
The X25519 x86_64 assembly implementation fails to clear the most significant bit during the final modular reduction, so the computed result may not be fully reduced modulo the field prime 2^255 - 19. This can leave the field element in…
more
a non-canonical form, producing an incorrect result from the scalar multiplication and potentially a wrong shared secret. The final carry-propagation chains in the x64 and AVX2 reduction routines could overflow into the top bit, and the high limb was not masked afterward, so the 255-bit field element was left non-canonical.
- 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 calculations and can discover incorrect or unintended results used in security decisions.
Requiring documented development processes and standards can enforce coding rules and tool usage that reduce introduction of calculation errors.
Engineering principles applied during design and implementation can require verified algorithms and safe arithmetic that structurally avoid incorrect calculation results.
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 mandates verification steps that catch incorrect calculations before they reach production.
A.8.26 requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks such as buffer overflows or SQL injection) be identified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce correct calculations or stop an arithmetic error from being introduced or exploited.
A.8.27 mandates establishing and applying secure engineering principles (including secure-by-design, least privilege, and design reviews) but does not itself remove or rewrite an incorrect calculation already present in first-party code; that is a code defect class reached only by testing or remediation controls per the locus rule.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit unsafe arithmetic and require defensive checks against incorrect results.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect calculation flaws before deployment.
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-682, a pillar-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.