CVE-2026-22866
Ens.Domains Ethereum Name Service ≤ 1.6.2
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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-2026-22866 is a low-severity Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (CWE-347) vulnerability in Ens.Domains Ethereum Name Service. Its CVSS base score is 2.7 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Supply Chain Compromise (T1195); ranked at the 7th 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 SI-7 (Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-22866 affects the Ethereum Name Service (ENS), a distributed naming system on the Ethereum blockchain, specifically in versions 1.6.2 and prior of the ens-contracts repository. The vulnerability resides in the RSASHA256Algorithm and RSASHA1Algorithm smart contracts, which fail to properly validate the PKCS#1 v1.5 padding structure during RSA signature verification. Instead, these contracts only check if the last 32 bytes (for SHA256) or 20 bytes (for SHA1) of the decrypted signature match the expected hash. This flaw enables Bleichenbacher's 2006 million-message attack for forging signatures on RSA keys with low public exponents (e=3), classified under CWE-347 (Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature) with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N).
Attackers require no privileges and can exploit this remotely over the network with low complexity. The issue impacts DNS zones using vulnerable RSA keys, particularly two ENS-supported top-level domains (.cc and .name), whose Key Signing Keys employ e=3. An attacker can forge DNSSEC signatures to fraudulently claim ownership of any subdomain under these TLDs on the ENS platform without controlling the actual DNS records, potentially enabling domain hijacking in the ENS ecosystem.
Mitigation involves deploying the patched versions of the affected contracts, with the fix merged in commit c76c5ad0dc9de1c966443bd946fafc6351f87587. As a workaround, operators can deploy the corrected contracts and update DNSSECImpl.setAlgorithm to reference them. Detailed guidance is available in the ENS contracts security advisory (GHSA-c6rr-7pmc-73wc) and the associated pull request.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-8679
Vulnerability Data
Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a distributed, open, and extensible naming system based on the Ethereum blockchain. In versions 1.6.2 and prior, the `RSASHA256Algorithm` and `RSASHA1Algorithm` contracts fail to validate PKCS#1 v1.5 padding structure when verifying RSA signatures. The contracts…
more
only check if the last 32 (or 20) bytes of the decrypted signature match the expected hash. This enables Bleichenbacher's 2006 signature forgery attack against DNS zones using RSA keys with low public exponents (e=3). Two ENS-supported TLDs (.cc and .name) use e=3 for their Key Signing Keys, allowing any domain under these TLDs to be fraudulently claimed on ENS without DNS ownership. Apatch was merged at commit c76c5ad0dc9de1c966443bd946fafc6351f87587. Possible workarounds include deploying the patched contracts and pointing DNSSECImpl.setAlgorithm to the deployed contract.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requiring cryptographic protection mechanisms forces correct signature verification to be implemented for data protection.
Mandating integrity verification tools directly requires proper cryptographic signature checking to detect unauthorized changes.
Protecting session authenticity requires correct verification of cryptographic signatures or equivalent mechanisms.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — 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) 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.
Establishing approved cryptographic solutions and usage practices lowers the probability that signature-verification steps will be omitted or incorrectly implemented.
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 `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
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. prevents 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. prevents CWE-347
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
- V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347
- V-271523 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of locally installed software packages before installation. prevents 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. prevents 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. prevents 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. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257822 RHEL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347