Skip to main content

Boteraser | Website and Server Security Solutions

🛡️ CVE-2026-2673 on Alpine — openssl

⚪ Unknown ✅ No Known Exploit OSV
N/A
CVSS Score
0 Low4 Medium7 High9 Critical10

Description

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.

Distribution advisory

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.

How this vulnerability can be exploited

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.

CVSS metrics in full

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

  • Attack vector: Network — reachable from anywhere that can route to the service.
  • Attack complexity: Low — the attack works reliably, with no preparation.
  • Privileges required: None — an unauthenticated stranger can try it.
  • User interaction: None — nobody has to be tricked into anything.
  • Scope: Unchanged — the damage stays inside the vulnerable component.
  • Confidentiality impact: None.
  • Integrity impact: Low — limited, and the attacker does not choose what is affected.
  • Availability impact: Low — limited, and the attacker does not choose what is affected.

Weakness class

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…

Affected software

ALPINE-CVE-2026-2673 is recorded against 1 package.

  • openssl (from 3.5.0 up to 3.5.6-r0)

Timeline and source

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.

References

security.alpinelinux.org (Advisory)

Other advisories for this package

openssl has other advisories on record. If you are patching this one, these are worth checking on the same host:

Same weakness in other software

These advisories are the same class of weakness (CWE-757: Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')) in other software:

CVE-2026-2673 on other distributions

Each distribution ships its own build and its own fixed version. Pick the one you run:

Details

Severity Unknown
CVSS Score N/A
CVSS Vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CWE N/A
Public Exploit ✅ No
Source OSV
Published 2026-03-13
Updated 2026-08-20
Modified 2026-07-08
Fix URL N/A

Affected Packages

Software From version Fixed in
openssl 3.5.0 3.5.6-r0

Vulnerability Monitoring

Track new vulnerabilities in openssl

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.

Browse related advisories

All advisoriesAlpineAlpine 2026