{"api_version":"1","generated_at":"2026-09-13T15:19:14+00:00","cve":"CVE-2026-63075","urls":{"html":"https://cve.report/CVE-2026-63075","api":"https://cve.report/api/cve/CVE-2026-63075.json","docs":"https://cve.report/api","cve_org":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63075","nvd":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63075"},"summary":{"title":"QUIC ACK-only Packet Retention Can Cause Memory Exhaustion","description":"Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly\nsends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the\nQUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the\nconnection.\n\nImpact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can\ncause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service\nthrough memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent\nQUIC connections.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,\nthere is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge\nthat ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL\nimplementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.\nIn and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and\nthen drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the \nOpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),\nand then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like\nlegitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth\non the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.\n\nThe fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only\npacket in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing\nthe ACK-only packet metadata itself.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is\noutside the FIPS module boundary.","state":"PUBLISHED","assigner":"openssl","published_at":"2026-08-25 13:19:26","updated_at":"2026-09-11 21:17:05"},"problem_types":["CWE-770","CWE-770 CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling"],"metrics":[{"version":"3.1","source":"ADP","type":"DECLARED","score":"7.5","severity":"HIGH","vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","data":{"attackComplexity":"LOW","attackVector":"NETWORK","availabilityImpact":"HIGH","baseScore":7.5,"baseSeverity":"HIGH","confidentialityImpact":"NONE","integrityImpact":"NONE","privilegesRequired":"NONE","scope":"UNCHANGED","userInteraction":"NONE","vectorString":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","version":"3.1"}},{"version":"3.1","source":"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0","type":"Secondary","score":"7.5","severity":"HIGH","vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","data":{"version":"3.1","vectorString":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","baseScore":7.5,"baseSeverity":"HIGH","attackVector":"NETWORK","attackComplexity":"LOW","privilegesRequired":"NONE","userInteraction":"NONE","scope":"UNCHANGED","confidentialityImpact":"NONE","integrityImpact":"NONE","availabilityImpact":"HIGH"}}],"references":[{"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt","name":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":["Vendor Advisory"],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf84721c2548351176e367e6de505792f0118dc6","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf84721c2548351176e367e6de505792f0118dc6","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":["Patch"],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7308946576b12e64b8be53bcf0a120354b2b42bc","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7308946576b12e64b8be53bcf0a120354b2b42bc","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":["Patch"],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/c902e5f16d6a9e130e96d3ca6d8f64d71652e393","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/c902e5f16d6a9e130e96d3ca6d8f64d71652e393","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":["Patch"],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7c98d79738549df92868e7dd9be4bbf061eed709","name":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7c98d79738549df92868e7dd9be4bbf061eed709","refsource":"openssl-security@openssl.org","tags":["Patch"],"title":"","mime":"","httpstatus":"","archivestatus":"0"},{"url":"https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63075","name":"CVE Program record","refsource":"CVE.ORG","tags":["canonical"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63075","name":"NVD vulnerability detail","refsource":"NVD","tags":["canonical","analysis"]}],"affected":[{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 4.0.0 4.0.2 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.6.0 3.6.4 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.5.0 3.5.8 semver","platforms":[]},{"source":"CNA","vendor":"OpenSSL","product":"OpenSSL","version":"affected 3.4.0 3.4.7 semver","platforms":[]}],"timeline":[],"solutions":[],"workarounds":[],"exploits":[],"credits":[{"source":"CNA","value":"Opal Wright (Trail of Bits)","lang":"en"},{"source":"CNA","value":"Neil Horman","lang":"en"}],"nvd_cpes":[{"cve_year":"2026","cve_id":"63075","vulnerable":"1","versionEndIncluding":"","cpe1":"cpe","cpe2":"2.3","cpe3":"a","cpe4":"openssl","cpe5":"openssl","cpe6":"*","cpe7":"*","cpe8":"*","cpe9":"*","cpe10":"*","cpe11":"*","cpe12":"*","cpe13":"*"}],"vendor_comments":[],"enrichments":{"kev":null,"epss":{"cve_year":"2026","cve_id":"63075","cve":"CVE-2026-63075","epss":"0.004800000","percentile":"0.395440000","score_date":"2026-08-30","updated_at":"2026-08-31 00:14:04"},"legacy_qids":[]},"source_records":{"cve_program":{"containers":{"adp":[{"metrics":[{"cvssV3_1":{"attackComplexity":"LOW","attackVector":"NETWORK","availabilityImpact":"HIGH","baseScore":7.5,"baseSeverity":"HIGH","confidentialityImpact":"NONE","integrityImpact":"NONE","privilegesRequired":"NONE","scope":"UNCHANGED","userInteraction":"NONE","vectorString":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","version":"3.1"}},{"other":{"content":{"id":"CVE-2026-63075","options":[{"Exploitation":"none"},{"Automatable":"yes"},{"Technical Impact":"partial"}],"role":"CISA Coordinator","timestamp":"2026-08-25T14:36:48.832724Z","version":"2.0.3"},"type":"ssvc"}}],"providerMetadata":{"dateUpdated":"2026-08-25T14:36:51.928Z","orgId":"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0","shortName":"CISA-ADP"},"title":"CISA ADP Vulnrichment"}],"cna":{"affected":[{"defaultStatus":"unaffected","product":"OpenSSL","vendor":"OpenSSL","versions":[{"lessThan":"4.0.2","status":"affected","version":"4.0.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.6.4","status":"affected","version":"3.6.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.5.8","status":"affected","version":"3.5.0","versionType":"semver"},{"lessThan":"3.4.7","status":"affected","version":"3.4.0","versionType":"semver"}]}],"credits":[{"lang":"en","type":"reporter","value":"Opal Wright (Trail of Bits)"},{"lang":"en","type":"remediation developer","value":"Neil Horman"}],"datePublic":"2026-08-25T11:36:16.000Z","descriptions":[{"lang":"en","supportingMedia":[{"base64":false,"type":"text/html","value":"Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly<br>sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the<br>QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the<br>connection.<br><br>Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can<br>cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service<br>through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent<br>QUIC connections.<br><br>CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling<br><br>Description: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,<br>there is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge<br>that ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL<br>implementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.<br>In and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and<br>then drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the <br>OpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),<br>and then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like<br>legitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth<br>on the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.<br><br>The fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only<br>packet in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing<br>the ACK-only packet metadata itself.<br><br>FIPS impact: no<br>The OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is<br>outside the FIPS module boundary."}],"value":"Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly\nsends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the\nQUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the\nconnection.\n\nImpact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can\ncause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service\nthrough memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent\nQUIC connections.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,\nthere is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge\nthat ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL\nimplementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.\nIn and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and\nthen drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the \nOpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),\nand then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like\nlegitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth\non the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.\n\nThe fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only\npacket in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing\nthe ACK-only packet metadata itself.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is\noutside the FIPS module boundary."}],"metrics":[{"format":"other","other":{"content":{"text":"Low"},"type":"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"}}],"problemTypes":[{"descriptions":[{"cweId":"CWE-770","description":"CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling","lang":"en","type":"CWE"}]}],"providerMetadata":{"dateUpdated":"2026-08-25T13:00:04.752Z","orgId":"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5","shortName":"openssl"},"references":[{"name":"OpenSSL Advisory","tags":["vendor-advisory"],"url":"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"},{"name":"4.0.2 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7308946576b12e64b8be53bcf0a120354b2b42bc"},{"name":"3.6.4 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf84721c2548351176e367e6de505792f0118dc6"},{"name":"3.5.8 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7c98d79738549df92868e7dd9be4bbf061eed709"},{"name":"3.4.7 git commit","tags":["patch"],"url":"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/c902e5f16d6a9e130e96d3ca6d8f64d71652e393"}],"source":{"discovery":"UNKNOWN"},"title":"QUIC ACK-only Packet Retention Can Cause Memory Exhaustion","x_generator":{"engine":"Vulnogram 0.2.0"}}},"cveMetadata":{"assignerOrgId":"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5","assignerShortName":"openssl","cveId":"CVE-2026-63075","datePublished":"2026-08-25T13:00:04.752Z","dateReserved":"2026-07-15T13:10:26.188Z","dateUpdated":"2026-08-25T14:36:51.928Z","state":"PUBLISHED"},"dataType":"CVE_RECORD","dataVersion":"5.2"},"nvd":{"publishedDate":"2026-08-25 13:19:26","lastModifiedDate":"2026-09-11 21:17:05","problem_types":["CWE-770","CWE-770 CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling"],"metrics":{"cvssMetricV31":[{"source":"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0","type":"Secondary","cvssData":{"version":"3.1","vectorString":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H","baseScore":7.5,"baseSeverity":"HIGH","attackVector":"NETWORK","attackComplexity":"LOW","privilegesRequired":"NONE","userInteraction":"NONE","scope":"UNCHANGED","confidentialityImpact":"NONE","integrityImpact":"NONE","availabilityImpact":"HIGH"},"exploitabilityScore":3.9,"impactScore":3.6}],"ssvcV203":[{"source":"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0","ssvcData":{"timestamp":"2026-08-25T14:36:48.832724Z","id":"CVE-2026-63075","options":[{"exploitation":"none"},{"automatable":"yes"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"role":"CISA Coordinator","version":"2.0.3"}}]},"configurations":[{"nodes":[{"operator":"OR","negate":false,"cpeMatch":[{"vulnerable":true,"criteria":"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","versionStartIncluding":"3.4.0","versionEndExcluding":"3.4.7","matchCriteriaId":"216D6529-561A-4684-A886-50954FBEBFB2"},{"vulnerable":true,"criteria":"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","versionStartIncluding":"3.5.0","versionEndExcluding":"3.5.8","matchCriteriaId":"C5BB9E95-09B6-4163-B51C-D62B528A04DA"},{"vulnerable":true,"criteria":"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","versionStartIncluding":"3.6.0","versionEndExcluding":"3.6.4","matchCriteriaId":"B1416826-F2F1-4EA8-9FB2-A56B0DA923C1"},{"vulnerable":true,"criteria":"cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*","versionStartIncluding":"4.0.0","versionEndExcluding":"4.0.2","matchCriteriaId":"63B8F45B-E44F-481C-815D-AF9CA89C48F6"}]}]}]},"legacy_mitre":{"record":{"CveYear":"2026","CveId":"63075","Ordinal":"1","Title":"QUIC ACK-only Packet Retention Can Cause Memory Exhaustion","CVE":"CVE-2026-63075","Year":"2026"},"notes":[{"CveYear":"2026","CveId":"63075","Ordinal":"1","NoteData":"Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly\nsends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the\nQUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the\nconnection.\n\nImpact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can\ncause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service\nthrough memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent\nQUIC connections.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,\nthere is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge\nthat ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL\nimplementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.\nIn and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and\nthen drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the \nOpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),\nand then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like\nlegitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth\non the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.\n\nThe fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only\npacket in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing\nthe ACK-only packet metadata itself.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is\noutside the FIPS module boundary.","Type":"Description","Title":"QUIC ACK-only Packet Retention Can Cause Memory Exhaustion"}]}}}