📌 이 취약점에 대해 확인된 사실
전부 발행처가 발표한 값입니다. 우리가 계산하거나 판단한 숫자는 하나도 없습니다.
악용 여부
심각도 (발행처 발표값)
보통6.9
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:Amber
악용 확률 (EPSS)
0.2%
📄 원문 그대로
아래 문장은 전부 발행처가 쓴 것입니다. 번역하지 않습니다 — 보안 문서의 오역은 조치를 바꿉니다.
취약점 설명 (NVD)
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the opt-in key-size validation on CMS key-transport recipients, org.bouncycastle.cms.jcajce.JceKeyTransRecipient.setKeySizeValidation(true), never ran for a message using RFC 9709 content-encryption key derivation (id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256). The branch that should have selected the actual content-encryption algorithm carried in the key derivation AlgorithmIdentifier's parameters compared the encrypted-key byte array against the id-alg-cek-hkdf-sha256 object identifier, a comparison between a byte array and an ASN1ObjectIdentifier that is false for every possible input, so the check fell through to a key-size lookup on the outer wrapper OID. That OID identifies a key-derivation construction rather than a cipher and has no registered key size, so the size comparison was skipped entirely. A key-transport EnvelopedData or AuthEnvelopedData whose transported, HKDF-derived content-encryption key did not match the key size of the advertised content-encryption algorithm was therefore accepted even with validation explicitly enabled, silently defeating the only mechanism the API offers for enforcing recovered key size. The recipient now dispatches on the content-encryption AlgorithmIdentifier's algorithm OID, so validation checks the recovered key against the inner content-encryption algorithm. Messages with a matching key size, non-HKDF messages, and recipients that do not enable validation are unaffected. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
참고
🧩 같은 약점 유형 — CWE-697
같은 분류의 다른 취약점입니다. 같은 실수가 제품을 가리지 않고 반복됩니다.