IT SBIT Services
Schneeberger
DEEN
CVE tracker

Bouncy Castle for Java: Missing cross-certification check for OpenPGP subkeys

CVE-2026-71887High 8.2

← All vulnerabilities

Summary

The high-level OpenPGP API of Bouncy Castle for Java accepts data signatures from a signing subkey whose binding signature has no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature and no Key Flags. Such a subkey inherits the primary key's signing capability, so a genuine signature made by the victim's subkey can be attributed to an attacker's certificate and under an attacker-chosen identity. The attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey and a relying party that verifies one of the victim's signed messages against the attacker's certificate. The low-level PGPSignature and PGPPublicKeyRing API is not affected.

Affected

  • Bouncy Castle for Java 1.81 to before 1.86, high-level OpenPGP API (org.bouncycastle.openpgp.api)
  • Applications that use the low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API are not affected
  • Distribution packages: check the vendor's or distributor's advisory for the exact build versions

Fixed in

  • Bouncy Castle for Java 1.86 (released 15 September 2026)
  • SUSE: bouncycastle 1.86-150200.3.41.1 for SLES 15.4 to 15.7 (according to SUSE's CVE page)
  • Debian: fixed version not confirmed, check the Debian security tracker

Workaround

  • No vendor workaround known.
  • Until the update is applied, do not treat a signature as tied to an identity just because the signing subkey verifies. Require the signer's primary key fingerprint and accept certificates only from trusted sources.

Exploitation

  • No public exploit or evidence of exploitation known. No CISA KEV listing.
  • CISA SSVC assessment: exploitation none, automatable no, technical impact partial.
  • VulDB reports that technical details are known but no exploit is available.

Our recommendation

  • Inventory all Java applications and SBOMs for Bouncy Castle, including transitive Maven or Gradle dependencies.
  • Update Bouncy Castle to 1.86 or a vendor-patched distribution build.
  • Prioritise applications that verify OpenPGP signatures on untrusted input, such as document, update, invoice or inbound file and e-mail processing, and check that they bind signer identity to the primary key fingerprint.
  • Monitor vendor and distribution advisories for updates.

Public exploits

PoC-in-GitHub, Metasploit and Exploit-DB list nothing for this CVE.

Research sources

Researched and written up in English and German by an AI (Claude by Anthropic) based on NVD, CISA, EPSS and the sources listed. The vendor information is authoritative. Researched on 1 Nov 2026, 17:05.

Original description (NVD)

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.

NVD references (2)

Sources

The tracker combines official, freely usable data sources – updated continuously:

This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD. EPSS data © FIRST.org.

Affected? We can help.

We check whether your systems are affected, install updates and close the gap – continuously with the System Health Checker if you wish.