CVE-2026-69247: cryptography: PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption exposes a Bleichenbacher oracle through distinguishable errors and timing

Published Aug 3, 2026
·
Updated

Summary

pkcs7decryptder, pkcs7decryptpem, and pkcs7decryptsmime reported the outcome of decrypting a RecipientInfo's encryptedKey in several distinguishable ways, one of which disclosed the exact length recovered from the RSA operation. The same distinction was also observable by timing. An application that decrypts attacker-supplied EnvelopedData and reflects the outcome gives the attacker a Bleichenbacher oracle against the content-encryption key.

Introduced in 44.0.0. Fixed in 50.0.0.

Details

Decryption ran as: RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 decrypt of encryptedKey → build an AES cipher from the result → AES-CBC decrypt and PKCS#7 unpad. Each stage failed differently, with no RFC 3218 mitigation:

1. invalid RSA padding → Decryption failed 2. valid padding, bad key length → Invalid key size (N) for AES., disclosing N 3. correct length, wrong key → Invalid padding bytes. 4. the real key → plaintext

Case 1 is reachable only where the linked library lacks implicit rejection: OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1, LibreSSL, and BoringSSL. On OpenSSL 3.2+, used in our wheels, invalid padding instead returns a synthetic plaintext of pseudorandom length, so the error channel does not distinguish conforming ciphertexts.

Exploitation requires a service that auto-decrypts untrusted EnvelopedData matching the victim certificate and answers adaptively at high volume, such as an S/MIME gateway or mail filter.

Fix

Per RFC 3218, the content-encryption algorithm is now resolved before the private key is used, so the expected key length is known in advance. If the RSA decryption fails or recovers a key of the wrong length, a random key of the expected length is substituted and decryption continues down an identical path. All failures now report identically and perform the same work.

Not addressed by this fix

EnvelopedData does not authenticate its content. Tampering with encryptedContent alone yields a CBC padding oracle that recovers plaintext at roughly 256 queries per byte, without recovering any key, on every backend. This is a property of PKCS#7 rather than of this implementation, cannot be fixed in the library, and is now documented.

Credit

Reported by @X1AOxiang.

Other sources

cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. From 44.0.0 until 50.0.0, pkcs7decryptder, pkcs7decryptpem, and pkcs7decryptsmime reported the outcome of decrypting a RecipientInfo's encryptedKey in several distinguishable ways, one of which disclosed the exact length recovered from the RSA operation. The same distinction was also observable by timing. An application that decrypts attacker-supplied EnvelopedData and reflects the outcome gives the attacker a Bleichenbacher oracle against the content-encryption key. Decryption ran as RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 decrypt of encryptedKey, build an AES cipher from the result, then AES-CBC decrypt and PKCS#7 unpad. Invalid RSA padding, a valid padding with a bad key length, a correct length with a wrong key, and the real key each failed or succeeded differently. Case 1 is reachable only where the linked library lacks implicit rejection: OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1, LibreSSL, and BoringSSL. Exploitation requires a service that auto-decrypts untrusted EnvelopedData matching the victim certificate and answers adaptively at high volume, such as an S/MIME gateway or mail filter. This issue is fixed in 50.0.0.

MITRE

Affected Software

1 affected componentFixes available
pip/cryptography>=44.0.0<50.0.0
50.0.0

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade pip/cryptography to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 50.0.0
  2. Upgrade

    Upgrade cryptography to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 50.0.0
  3. Configuration

    Upgrade to cryptography 50.0.0, which applies the RFC 3218 mitigation so failures/time no longer distinguish RSA padding/key length vs correct key length during EnvelopedData decryption at pkcs7_decrypt_der, pkcs7_decrypt_pem, and pkcs7_decrypt_smime.

    cryptography (PKCS#7 EnvelopedData decryption) RFC 3218 mitigation (resolve content-encryption algorithm before RSA operation) = enabled

Event History

Aug 3, 2026
CVE Published
via MITRE·09:16 PM
Data Sourced
via MITRE·09:16 PM
DescriptionWeakness
Advisory Published
via GitHub·09:17 PM
Data Sourced
via GitHub·09:17 PM
DescriptionWeaknessAffected Software
Data Sourced
via NVD·10:16 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeakness
Free Weekly Intel

Don't miss critical vulnerabilities

Join thousands of security professionals who receive our weekly digest of trending CVEs, zero-days, and exploited vulnerabilities.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

1

What is the severity of CVE-2026-69247?

CVE-2026-69247 has a risk score of 55, indicating a moderate to high vulnerability.

2

How do I fix CVE-2026-69247?

To resolve CVE-2026-69247, update the pip/cryptography library to the latest version that addresses this vulnerability.

3

What impacts does CVE-2026-69247 have on system security?

CVE-2026-69247 could potentially allow attackers to exploit a timing oracle to gain information about encrypted data.

4

Which cryptographic functions are affected by CVE-2026-69247?

The PKCS#7 functions, specifically pkcs7_decrypt_der, pkcs7_decrypt_pem, and pkcs7_decrypt_smime, are affected by CVE-2026-69247.

5

Who is vulnerable to CVE-2026-69247?

Any application or system using an affected version of the pip/cryptography library is vulnerable to CVE-2026-69247.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203