CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
highInfo Disclosurepublic exploit

CVE-2026-71883

CVE-2026-71883 — Native AES packet cipher returns the raw AES key on an alias

In Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, the one-shot native packet ciphers for AES-CBC, CCM, CFB, CTR, GCM and GCM-SIV released the caller's key, IV and additional authenticated data arrays with JNI's ReleaseByteArrayElements in mode 0, which commits the native copy back into the Java array. Those arrays are read-only to the native code, and on a JVM that returns a copy rather than a pin the copy still holds the input bytes as they were read. The output buffer is taken through a separate critical region and committed first, so where an application passed the same Java array as both an input and the destination - encrypting in place over KeyParameter.getKey(), for example - the later mode-0 release of the key wrote the unchanged key bytes over the ciphertext that had just been produced. The call still returned the correct output length, so an application encrypting in place over its own key array was handed the raw AES key where it expected ciphertext, with nothing in the API to indicate it, and would transmit or store the key in place of the message. The read-only input arrays are now released with JNI_ABORT, freeing the native copy without copying it back, and mode 0 is reserved for arrays the native code wrote. The pure-Java packet ciphers and the streaming native modes are not affected. Bouncy Castle for Java (bcprov) is not affected, as it ships no native implementations.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, 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

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

CVSS base

8.2

high

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade BC-LTS-JAVA 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.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.BC-LTS-JAVA2.73.4 to < 2.73.13Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Scope

X

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.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
8.2CVSS 4.0high——Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/U:Amber

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-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

  • Read Application Data::

Mitigation: Compartmentalize the system to have safe areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.::

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-643 · Identify Shared Files/Directories on SystemCAPEC-313 · Passive OS FingerprintingCAPEC-293 · Traceroute Route EnumerationCAPEC-22 · Exploiting Trust in ClientCAPEC-13 · Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-576 · Group Permission FootprintingCAPEC-224 · FingerprintingCAPEC-116 · ExcavationCAPEC-472 · Browser FingerprintingCAPEC-292 · Host DiscoveryCAPEC-574 · Services FootprintingCAPEC-497 · File Discovery
  • T1562.003Impair Defenses: Impair Command History Logging
  • T1574.006Hijack Execution Flow: Dynamic Linker Hijacking
  • T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable

Public exploit

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

Repositories

2

Detection

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

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable BC-LTS-JAVA.
  • 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.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 8.2 (AV:N)

    Oct 3, 2026 · NVD

  3. Initial · CVE published

    Oct 3, 2026 · NVD

  4. Added · GHSA-f5wg-4mfp-h458 published (high)

    Oct 3, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

  5. CVE published by MITRE.

    Oct 3, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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-2026-71883 is Native AES packet cipher returns the raw AES key on an alias, a high vulnerability affecting BC-LTS-JAVA from Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc.. 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-2026-71883. 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 8.2 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.