{"api_version":"1","generated_at":"2026-04-21T10:53:24+00:00","cve":"CVE-2026-28387","urls":{"html":"https://cve.report/CVE-2026-28387","api":"https://cve.report/api/cve/CVE-2026-28387.json","docs":"https://cve.report/api","cve_org":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-28387","nvd":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28387"},"summary":{"title":"Potential Use-after-free in DANE Client Code","description":"Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based\nserver authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may\nresult in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side.\n\nImpact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences\nsuch as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.\n\nHowever, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both\nthe PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate\nusage.\n\nBy far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672\nrecommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX\ncertificate usages.  These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable\nto this issue.  Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and\nignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable.\n\nThe client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a\nTLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records.\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the\nFIPS module boundary.","state":"PUBLISHED","assigner":"openssl","published_at":"2026-04-07 22:16:20","updated_at":"2026-04-08 21:27:00"},"problem_types":["CWE-416","CWE-416 CWE-416 Use After Free"],"metrics":[],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7a4e08cee62a728d32e60b0de89e6764339df0a7","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7a4e08cee62a728d32e60b0de89e6764339df0a7","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/07e727d304746edb49a98ee8f6ab00256e1f012b","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/07e727d304746edb49a98ee8f6ab00256e1f012b","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260407.txt","name":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260407.txt","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/258a8f63b26995ba357f4326da00e19e29c6acbe","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/258a8f63b26995ba357f4326da00e19e29c6acbe","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/444958deaf450aea819171f97ae69eaedede42c3","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/444958deaf450aea819171f97ae69eaedede42c3","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/ec03fa050b3346997ed9c5fef3d0e16ad7db8177","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/ec03fa050b3346997ed9c5fef3d0e16ad7db8177","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":[],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-28387","name":"CVE Program record","refsource":"CVE.ORG","tags":["canonical"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28387","name":"NVD vulnerability detail","refsource":"NVD","tags":["canonical","analysis"]}],"affected":[{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.6.0 3.6.2 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.5.0 3.5.6 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.4.0 3.4.5 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.3.0 3.3.7 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.0.0 3.0.20 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 1.1.1 1.1.1zg custom","platforms":[]}],"timeline":[],"solutions":[],"workarounds":[],"exploits":[],"credits":[{"source":"CNA","value":"Igor Morgenstern (Aisle Research)","lang":"en"},{"source":"CNA","value":"Viktor Dukhovni","lang":"en"},{"source":"CNA","value":"Alexandr Nedvedicky","lang":"en"}],"nvd_cpes":[],"vendor_comments":[],"enrichments":{"kev":null,"epss":{"cve_year":"2026","cve_id":"28387","cve":"CVE-2026-28387","epss":"0.000210000","percentile":"0.055150000","score_date":"2026-04-14","updated_at":"2026-04-15 00:18:08"},"legacy_qids":[]},"source_records":{"cve_program":{"containers":{"cna":{"affected":[{"defaultStatus":"unaffected","product":"OpenSSL","vendor":"OpenSSL","versions":[{"lessThan":"3.6.2","status":"affected","version":"3.6.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.5.6","status":"affected","version":"3.5.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.4.5","status":"affected","version":"3.4.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.3.7","status":"affected","version":"3.3.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.0.20","status":"affected","version":"3.0.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"1.1.1zg","status":"affected","version":"1.1.1","versionType":"custom"}]}],"credits":[{"lang":"en","type":"reporter","value":"Igor Morgenstern (Aisle Research)"},{"lang":"en","type":"remediation developer","value":"Viktor Dukhovni"},{"lang":"en","type":"remediation developer","value":"Alexandr Nedvedicky"}],"datePublic":"2026-04-07T14:00:00.000Z","descriptions":[{"lang":"en","supportingMedia":[{"base64":false,"type":"text/html","value":"Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based<br>server authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may<br>result in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side.<br><br>Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences<br>such as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.<br><br>However, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both<br>the PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate<br>usage.<br><br>By far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672<br>recommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX<br>certificate usages.  These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable<br>to this issue.  Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and<br>ignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable.<br><br>The client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a<br>TLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records.<br><br>No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the<br>FIPS module boundary."}],"value":"Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based\nserver authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may\nresult in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side.\n\nImpact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences\nsuch as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.\n\nHowever, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both\nthe PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate\nusage.\n\nBy far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672\nrecommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX\ncertificate usages.  These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable\nto this issue.  Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and\nignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable.\n\nThe client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a\nTLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records.\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the\nFIPS module boundary."}],"metrics":[{"format":"other","other":{"content":{"text":"Low"},"type":"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"}}],"problemTypes":[{"descriptions":[{"cweId":"CWE-416","description":"CWE-416 Use After Free","lang":"en","type":"CWE"}]}],"providerMetadata":{"dateUpdated":"2026-04-07T22:00:51.496Z","orgId":"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5","shortName":"openssl"},"references":[{"name":"OpenSSL Advisory","tags":["vendor-advisory"],"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260407.txt"},{"name":"3.6.2 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/258a8f63b26995ba357f4326da00e19e29c6acbe"},{"name":"3.5.6 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/444958deaf450aea819171f97ae69eaedede42c3"},{"name":"3.4.5 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/07e727d304746edb49a98ee8f6ab00256e1f012b"},{"name":"3.3.7 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7a4e08cee62a728d32e60b0de89e6764339df0a7"},{"name":"3.0.20 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/ec03fa050b3346997ed9c5fef3d0e16ad7db8177"}],"source":{"discovery":"UNKNOWN"},"title":"Potential Use-after-free in DANE Client Code","x_generator":{"engine":"Vulnogram 0.2.0"}}},"cveMetadata":{"assignerOrgId":"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5","assignerShortName":"openssl","cveId":"CVE-2026-28387","datePublished":"2026-04-07T22:00:51.496Z","dateReserved":"2026-02-27T13:45:02.161Z","dateUpdated":"2026-04-07T22:00:51.496Z","state":"PUBLISHED"},"dataType":"CVE_RECORD","dataVersion":"5.2"},"nvd":{"publishedDate":"2026-04-07 22:16:20","lastModifiedDate":"2026-04-08 21:27:00","problem_types":["CWE-416","CWE-416 CWE-416 Use After Free"],"metrics":[],"configurations":[]},"legacy_mitre":{"record":{"CveYear":"2026","CveId":"28387","Ordinal":"1","Title":"Potential Use-after-free in DANE Client Code","CVE":"CVE-2026-28387","Year":"2026"},"notes":[{"CveYear":"2026","CveId":"28387","Ordinal":"1","NoteData":"Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based\nserver authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may\nresult in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side.\n\nImpact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences\nsuch as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.\n\nHowever, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both\nthe PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate\nusage.\n\nBy far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672\nrecommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX\ncertificate usages.  These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable\nto this issue.  Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and\nignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable.\n\nThe client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a\nTLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records.\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the\nFIPS module boundary.","Type":"Description","Title":"Potential Use-after-free in DANE Client Code"}]}}}