Cyber Resilience

CVE-2026-60001

DoS in Openbsd Openssh ≤ 10.4

Published
08 July 2026
Modified
09 July 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0029 21th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2026-60001 is a medium-severity Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (CWE-770) vulnerability in Openbsd Openssh. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Brute Force (T1110); ranked at the 21th 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 AC-7 (Unsuccessful Logon Attempts) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

sshd in OpenSSH before 10.4 does not always honor the minimum authentication delay.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1110 Brute Force Credential Access
Adversaries may use brute force techniques to gain access to accounts when passwords are unknown or when password hashes are obtained.
Why these techniques?

The vulnerability allows bypassing the intended minimum authentication delay in OpenSSH, which could facilitate brute-force or password-guessing attempts (T1110) by reducing the time between authentication attempts.

Confidence: MEDIUM · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-60000Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-35414Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-59998Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-35386Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-59995Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-35385Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-35387Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-59997Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-35388Same product: Openbsd Openssh
CVE-2026-59999Same product: Openbsd Openssh

Affected Assets

openbsd
openssh
≤ 10.4

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • AC-7 Unsuccessful Logon Attempts
  • SC-7 Boundary Protection
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)
  • SI-4 System Monitoring
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V15.4.4

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

AC-7 enforces configurable thresholds for unsuccessful logon attempts and the associated delay between attempts, directly mitigating the failure of sshd to honor the minimum authentication delay.

prevent

SC-7 boundary-protection mechanisms can limit the rate of inbound SSH connections, reducing the impact of an authentication-delay bypass.

detect

SI-4 continuous monitoring can detect anomalous authentication patterns that result from the missing minimum-delay enforcement.

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.

PR.IR-04 mostly match
degrades

Monitoring capacity and taking action to maintain availability directly reduces unchecked resource allocation.

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.

detects

Baseline comparison of CPU, memory and bandwidth usage helps surface uncontrolled resource allocations before they cause service degradation.

prevents

Capacity projections and elasticity measures ensure that allocation requests are bounded and can be throttled, reducing the window in which an attacker can force unbounded resource reservations.

mitigates

Defining retention periods and deletion schedules for backup copies prevents indefinite accumulation of data on storage media without corresponding resource-management controls.

mitigates

Architectural redundancy and automatic failover limit the impact of an attacker who forces excessive allocations, because spare capacity can absorb the load until the primary instance recovers.

none

Documented incident response procedures that include activation of continuity plans and controlled recovery help ensure that resource consumption triggered by an incident is bounded and managed rather than left unbounded.

none

Mandating tested continuity procedures that preserve or replace resource-limiting controls prevents an attacker from exploiting the absence of throttling mechanisms during an outage.

References