CVE-2026-74900
Jahlives Openssl Encrypt ≤ 1.4.0
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2026-74900 is a critical-severity Unchecked Error Condition (CWE-391) vulnerability in Jahlives Openssl Encrypt. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 27th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-60117
Vulnerability Data
openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.0 contain a critical vulnerability in pqc.py where KEM decapsulation failures silently fall back to simulation mode, generating a deterministic shared secret from only 16 bytes of the private key and publicly available encapsulated key data. Attackers…
more
who obtain 16 bytes of the private key can compute the shared secret and decrypt all ciphertext, as the fallback triggers on any KEM failure without raising an error.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can identify locations where error conditions are ignored or unhandled.
Secure engineering principles require explicit handling of error conditions and exceptions during design and implementation.
Fail-to-known-state requirements limit blast radius when an unchecked error condition occurs.
Proper error handling ensures conditions produce actionable messages rather than allowing silent unexpected behavior.
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.
Event analysis can surface consequences of unchecked errors but does not enforce error checking itself.
Runtime monitoring can detect anomalous behavior from ignored errors but does not prevent the coding flaw.
Requiring log generation makes ignored error conditions visible to monitoring, directly reducing the weakness impact.
Secure SDLC practices include proper exception and error handling, eliminating the root cause of CWE-391.
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 life cycle requires systematic error handling, reducing unchecked conditions.
Application security requirements include explicit handling of error conditions.
Secure architecture principles mandate robust exception and error management.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit ignoring exceptions and unchecked errors.
Security testing can detect missing error handling before deployment.