What is CVE-2026-14457?

CVE-2026-14457 is RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Memory Corruption mapped to CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-14457. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-14457 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

2 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-14457 using CVSS 7.5, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highMemory Corruptionpublic exploit

CVE-2026-14457

CVE-2026-14457 — RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate

Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally, a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension. Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible. CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or signed by any convenient CA). When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the "signature_algorithms_cert" extension is handled reliably even without the fix, and peer clients or servers that don't support raw public keys may be able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding certificate or its public key. Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below. FIPS impact: no No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Published Aug 25, 2026Updated Aug 25, 2026Sources: NVD, OpenSSL (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

OpenSSL

4 products listed

CVSS base

7.5

high

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

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade OpenSSL to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
OpenSSL	OpenSSL	4.0.0 to < 4.0.2	Vulnerable
OpenSSL	OpenSSL	3.6.0 to < 3.6.4	Vulnerable
OpenSSL	OpenSSL	3.5.0 to < 3.5.8	Vulnerable
OpenSSL	OpenSSL	3.4.0 to < 3.4.7	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
7.5	CVSS 3.1	high	3.9	3.6	CNA

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-476 · NULL Pointer Dereference

DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Read Memory
Modify Memory

Mitigation: If all pointers that could have been modified are sanity-checked previous to use, nearly all NULL pointer dereferences can be prevented.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-100 · Overflow BuffersCAPEC-123 · Buffer Manipulation

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable OpenSSL.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 2 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 7.5 (AV:N)
Aug 25, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 25, 2026 · NVD

References

5 on the record

github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/1e8c398db67404babd3e5af999bb6bd86f720c76
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/581aaa0f0a35d214740f0fe1f5283ec41f1212e1
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d0af20478688a6aa2f59d61caa3f82136b181d7f
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/dad836b071da6579510c968615848ba03cac593b
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt
Vendor Advisory, Mitre

Elsewhere on this site

OpenSSLevery CVE for this vendor
Memory Corruptionsame class
CWE-476other 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.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-14457 is RPK Server Signature Algorithm Selection Can Dereference a Missing Certificate, a high vulnerability affecting OpenSSL from OpenSSL. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-14457. Public exploit evidence is: 2 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.