CVE-2026-55144
Missing cryptographic step in Windows CryptoAPI allows an authorized attacker to perform tampering locally.
CVSS
7.1
Alto
EPSS
0.2%
p13
KEV
—
Exploit Today
4
0-100
Publicado: 14 jul 2026 · Última mod.: 21 jul 2026 · CWE-325
0.2%EPSS · 30 días0.2%
2026-08-042026-08-31
Missing cryptographic step in Windows CryptoAPI allows an authorized attacker to perform tampering locally.
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2026-252506.0 MED0.5%
——0EAZ EazyFix 12.9 allows a Security Feature Bypass related to a "Missing Cryptographic Step" associated with "Secure Boot disable."5dCVE-2026-76784—4.2%
——1Multiple
TP-Link Kasa smart home devices contain insufficient cryptographic protections
in the local device communication protocol. An adjacent network attacker may
intercept, replay or forge locally exchanged control messages, potentially
resulting in unauthorized device control.
Successful
exploitation could allow an attacker to manipulate the operational state of an
affected device, resulting in unauthorized state changes, disruption of normal
device functionality or a denial-of-service condition.5dCVE-2026-176669.1 CRÍ15.1%
——5Cryptographic Flaw in Enterprise in Google Chrome prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to bypass discretionary access control via malicious network traffic. (Chromium security severity: High)30dCVE-2026-597766.8 MED3.9%
——1Missing Cryptographic Step (CWE-325) vulnerability exists in certain FeliCa IC chips shipped in or before 2017. If the vulnerability is exploited, information stored in the IC chip may be read or tampered with.43dCVE-2026-586386.0 MED14.2%
——4Missing cryptographic step in Windows Boot Loader allows an authorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.42dCVE-2026-454464.8 MED30.3%
——9Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV
(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.
Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
to the victim's application using these ciphers.
AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD
modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated
but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte
tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only
if the tag is verified succesfully.
In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is
computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.
If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without
invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received
ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its
all-zeros value.
When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty
ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not
know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's
necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without
resetting the key.
AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since
OpenSSL 3.2.
No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support
either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must
implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the
ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.41d