BDU:2026-01219

CVE-2025-69420

Issue summary: A type confusion vulnerability exists in the TimeStamp Response verification code where an ASN1_TYPE union member is accessed without first validating the type, causing an invalid or NULL pointer dereference when processing a malformed TimeStamp Response file. Impact summary: An application calling TS_RESP_verify_response() with a malformed TimeStamp Response can be caused to dereference an invalid or NULL pointer when reading, resulting in a Denial of Service. The functions ossl_ess_get_signing_cert() and ossl_ess_get_signing_cert_v2() access the signing cert attribute value without validating its type. When the type is not V_ASN1_SEQUENCE, this results in accessing invalid memory through the ASN1_TYPE union, causing a crash. Exploiting this vulnerability requires an attacker to provide a malformed TimeStamp Response to an application that verifies timestamp responses. The TimeStamp protocol (RFC 3161) is not widely used and the impact of the exploit is just a Denial...

CVE-2025-69420

Issue summary: A type confusion vulnerability exists in the TimeStamp Response verification code where an ASN1_TYPE union member is accessed without first validating the type, causing an invalid or NULL pointer dereference when processing a malformed TimeStamp Response file. Impact summary: An application calling TS_RESP_verify_response() with a malformed TimeStamp Response can be caused to dereference an invalid or NULL pointer when reading, resulting in a Denial of Service. The functions ossl_ess_get_signing_cert() and ossl_ess_get_signing_cert_v2() access the signing cert attribute value without validating its type. When the type is not V_ASN1_SEQUENCE, this results in accessing invalid memory through the ASN1_TYPE union, causing a crash. Exploiting this vulnerability requires an attacker to provide a malformed TimeStamp Response to an application that verifies timestamp responses. The TimeStamp protocol (RFC 3161) is not widely used and the impact of the exploit is just a Denial...

CVE-2025-69420

Issue summary: A type confusion vulnerability exists in the TimeStamp Response verification code where an ASN1_TYPE union member is accessed without first validating the type, causing an invalid or NULL pointer dereference when processing a malformed TimeStamp Response file. Impact summary: An application calling TS_RESP_verify_response() with a malformed TimeStamp Response can be caused to dereference an invalid or NULL pointer when reading, resulting in a Denial of Service. The functions ossl_ess_get_signing_cert() and ossl_ess_get_signing_cert_v2() access the signing cert attribute value without validating its type. When the type is not V_ASN1_SEQUENCE, this results in accessing invalid memory through the ASN1_TYPE union, causing a crash. Exploiting this vulnerability requires an attacker to provide a malformed TimeStamp Response to an application that verifies timestamp responses. The TimeStamp protocol (RFC 3161) is not widely used and the impact of the exploit is just a Denial

CVE-2025-69420

Issue summary: A type confusion vulnerability exists in the TimeStamp ...

GHSA-w42r-ph9f-9x66

Issue summary: A type confusion vulnerability exists in the TimeStamp Response verification code where an ASN1_TYPE union member is accessed without first validating the type, causing an invalid or NULL pointer dereference when processing a malformed TimeStamp Response file. Impact summary: An application calling TS_RESP_verify_response() with a malformed TimeStamp Response can be caused to dereference an invalid or NULL pointer when reading, resulting in a Denial of Service. The functions ossl_ess_get_signing_cert() and ossl_ess_get_signing_cert_v2() access the signing cert attribute value without validating its type. When the type is not V_ASN1_SEQUENCE, this results in accessing invalid memory through the ASN1_TYPE union, causing a crash. Exploiting this vulnerability requires an attacker to provide a malformed TimeStamp Response to an application that verifies timestamp responses. The TimeStamp protocol (RFC 3161) is not widely used and the impact of the exploit is just a Den...