Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword.
Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.
If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.
As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's
configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the
only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction).
OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat'
list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure.
If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server
the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by
the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been
more preferred, if included.
The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly
equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among
the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group
from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares,
the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello
Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group.
The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in
default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the
various desired groups and group 'tuples'.
No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies
outside the FIPS boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released.
OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released.
OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue.
This page covers CVE-2026-2673 as tracked by Alpine, for the package openssl. The fix is available in version 3.5.6-r0; earlier versions remain affected.
This issue can be reached over the network, attack complexity is low, an attacker needs no privileges on the target. No user interaction is required. The scope is unchanged, so the impact stays within the vulnerable component. Rated impact: confidentiality none, integrity low, availability low.
The score comes from this vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
ALPINE-CVE-2026-2673 is classified as CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade'). A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest…
ALPINE-CVE-2026-2673 is recorded against 1 package.
Published on 13 March 2026 and last revised on 8 July 2026. No public exploit is currently recorded for this entry. Record sourced from OSV.
security.alpinelinux.org (Advisory)
openssl has other advisories on record. If you are patching this one, these are worth checking on the same host:
These advisories are the same class of weakness (CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')) in other software:
Each distribution ships its own build and its own fixed version. Pick the one you run:
Details
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Affected Packages
| Software | From version | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openssl | 3.5.0 | 3.5.6-r0 |
References
Similar Threats
Vulnerability Monitoring
ALPINE-CVE-2026-2673 is rated CVSS 6.5 Medium. BotEraser monitors your WordPress installation and notifies you when software you use appears in our vulnerability database.
Set Up Free Alerts →No credit card required · Results in minutes
ⓘ Data Notice: The information presented above has been compiled from publicly available internet sources. Boteraser aggregates this data solely for informational purposes and does not independently classify, evaluate, or endorse any findings about the vulnerabilities listed. The accuracy and completeness of this information is the sole responsibility of the original publishers. Boteraser and its operators accept no liability for any decisions made based on this data.
Stay up to date with the latest from Boteraser.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Manage your cookie preferences below:
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
CloudFlare provides web performance and security solutions, enhancing site speed and protecting against threats.
Service URL: developers.cloudflare.com (opens in a new window)
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Service URL: policies.google.com (opens in a new window)
You can find more information in our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.