Quick answer
Direct answer
Risk scores
| CVSS metric | What it means |
|---|---|
| Attack vector (AV:N) | Network: reachable remotely |
| Attack complexity (AC:L) | Low complexity |
| Attack requirements (AT:N) | No attack requirements |
| Privileges required (PR:N) | No privileges required |
| User interaction (UI:N) | No user interaction |
| Confidentiality (VC:H) | High confidentiality impact |
| Integrity (VI:H) | High integrity impact |
| Availability (VA:N) | No availability impact |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
About Bouncycastle Bc-Java
CVE-2026-58062 affects Bouncycastle Bc-Java, a product from Bouncycastle. Before acting, confirm where Bouncycastle Bc-Java runs in your estate, who owns it and whether it is reachable from the internet, because exposure decides real risk more than the score alone.
What the flaw is
In plain terms: In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Stapled OCSP response accepted without binding to the checked certificate. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series).
Based on its CVSS vector, the flaw can be reached over the network, needs no login, and needs no user interaction. Apply the vendor fix and confirm exposure on internet facing and business critical assets first.
Affected versions and timeline
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Product | Bouncycastle Bc-Java |
| Affected versions | Bc-Java from 1.66 before 1.85; Bouncy Castle For Java Lts up to and including 2.73.11; Fips Java Api before 2.0.2; Fips Java Api from 2.1.0 before 2.1.3 |
| Published | Aug 3, 2026 |
| Last modified | Sep 2, 2026 |
| Added to CISA KEV | Not listed |
| Assigning CNA | 91579145-5d7b-4cc5-b925-a0262ff19630 |
How to detect it
- Inventory every instance of Bouncycastle Bc-Java and record the running version against the affected range above.
- Check external attack surface scans for internet facing instances of the component.
- Review logs on affected systems for unusual requests, errors or new processes around the vulnerable function.
- Confirm with an authenticated vulnerability scan once your scanner has a check for this CVE.
How to fix it
- Apply the fixed version of Bouncycastle Bc-Java named in the vendor advisory.
- If patching must wait, restrict network access to the affected service and put it behind authentication or a web application firewall rule.
- Rescan after the change to prove the exposure is gone, then close the ticket.
CTEM action plan
| CTEM stage | What to do for this CVE |
|---|---|
| Scope | Add every business service that depends on Bouncycastle Bc-Java to the current CTEM cycle. |
| Discover | Find all instances, including shadow and cloud deployments, and record versions and exposure. |
| Prioritize | Rank using EPSS and CVSS together with asset exposure and business impact. |
| Validate | Confirm the flaw is reachable and exploitable in your environment and that compensating controls work. |
| Mobilize | Assign the fix to the asset owner with a due date matched to the priority, then verify closure. |
CWE References
Technical References
Frequently asked questions
Related CVEs
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the MLS implementation (org.bouncycastle.mls) holds RFC 9420's uint32 leaf_index in a signed int, so a wire value with the top bit set decodes to a negative number. That is a legitimate encoding rather than malformed input, and it must still decode, since the MLS interop test vectors round-trip the full range. GroupKeySet.SecretTree.hasLeaf and Group.validateRemove compared the decoded value directly against the tree's leaf count, and a signed comparison treats any negative int as less than a positive bound, so an out-of-range sender passed the membership check. In the hasLeaf case the SenderData of an unprotected PrivateMessage could then drive LeafIndex.directPath through NodeIndex.parent() arithmetic that never reaches the tree root, growing the resulting node list without bound until the JVM exhausted its heap. A single small message from any current group member could therefore deny service to every other member of the group. Both comparisons now interpret the value as unsigned via Integer.toUnsignedLong, rejecting an out-of-range sender however it was encoded; well-formed leaf indices are unaffected.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Possible OOM from unbounded up-front allocation on a definite-length read. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series), and before bctls-fips 1.0.24.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, Lazy ASN.1 sequence forcing resets nesting-depth guard. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bc-fips 1.0.2.7 (1.0.X series), 2.0.2 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.3 (2.1.X series).
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, MLS wire decoder allocates attacker-declared opaque length before bounds check.
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, OpenPGP AEAD decryption skips final tag on chunk-aligned data. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series).
In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, IESEngine stream-mode MAC forgery via length-dependent KDF split. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12.
Earn your free CTEM certification.
Learn to scope, prioritize, validate and mobilize fixes for CVEs like CVE-2026-58062 with a free CTEM certification.
Beginner / Practitioner / Program Leader
Explore certifications