CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2026-10098

CVE-2026-10098 — OCSP CertID serial-number length-confusion in wolfSSL_OCSP_resp_find_status

OCSP CertID serial-number length-confusion in wolfSSL_OCSP_resp_find_status allows a same-issuer SingleResponse whose serial is a prefix of the target serial to be reported as the revocation status of a different certificate. The lookup compared serial-number bytes without first requiring the two serial numbers to be of equal length, so a SingleResponse for one certificate (same issuer) whose serial is a prefix of the target's serial would match, returning the wrong certificate's status. The fix requires the serial lengths to be equal before comparing the serial bytes.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, wolfSSL

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

wolfssl

wolfssl

CVSS base

6.3

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

wolfssl

Products (1)

wolfssl

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
6.3CVSS 4.0MEDIUM——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-295

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • wolfsslevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-295other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.