HIGH 7.5

CVE-2026-6331: WolfSSL HMAC Zero-Length Tag Forgery Vulnerability (CVSS 7.5)

A cryptographic validation weakness in WolfSSL's HMAC verification allows forged or truncated message authentication codes to be accepted as valid. The vulnerability exists in the EVP_DigestVerifyFinal function, where the system fails to strictly validate that a supplied signature matches the full expected length. An attacker can craft a zero-length or shortened tag that passes verification when it should be rejected, potentially allowing tampered messages to be accepted as authentic.

Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain

CVSS
3.1 · 7.5 HIGH · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Weaknesses (CWE)
CWE-347
Affected products
1 configuration(s)
Published / Modified
2026-06-25 / 2026-06-27

NVD description (verbatim)

HMAC zero-length tag forgery in EVP_DigestVerifyFinal, where a zero-length tag could be accepted as valid during HMAC verification. In the OpenSSL-compatibility HMAC verify path the supplied signature length was only checked as not exceeding the MAC length, so a zero-length or otherwise truncated tag could pass verification. The fix requires the supplied tag length to exactly equal the MAC length and rejects a zero-length MAC, so a forged short or empty tag is no longer accepted.

2 reference(s) · View on NVD →

SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source

Technical summary

CVE-2026-6331 is an HMAC tag forgery vulnerability in WolfSSL's OpenSSL-compatibility HMAC verification path. The flaw resides in EVP_DigestVerifyFinal, which during signature verification only validated that the supplied tag length did not exceed the expected MAC length, rather than requiring an exact match. This permissive length check allows zero-length tags and other truncated MACs to pass verification. The vulnerability is rooted in CWE-347 (Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature). The fix enforces strict equality between the supplied tag length and the computed MAC length, rejecting any zero-length or undersized authentication codes.

Business impact

This vulnerability compromises message authentication integrity. Any application relying on WolfSSL's HMAC verification to detect tampering or confirm message provenance is exposed to forgery attacks. An attacker could modify protected messages while supplying an empty or crafted short tag that passes verification, effectively bypassing authentication controls. The impact is particularly severe for systems using HMAC to protect API calls, configuration integrity, or access control tokens. Organizations depending on WolfSSL for cryptographic operations face a window of risk until patching is applied.

Affected systems

WolfSSL (all versions prior to the patched release) is affected. WolfSSL is a lightweight embedded SSL/TLS library used in IoT devices, embedded systems, and applications requiring compact cryptographic implementations. Organizations running WolfSSL in production—particularly those using it in resource-constrained environments like microcontrollers, firmware, or edge devices—should audit their deployment scope. Verify your specific WolfSSL version against the vendor advisory to confirm patch eligibility.

Exploitability

This vulnerability requires no special network conditions, no user interaction, and no privileges to exploit. An attacker needs only network access to a system performing HMAC verification and the ability to craft messages with forged zero-length or truncated authentication tags. The CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5 (HIGH, with AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N) reflects the ease of exploitation and the absence of mitigating access controls. However, exploitation is constrained to scenarios where an attacker can directly supply crafted messages to the verification function; the practical impact depends on how HMAC verification is integrated into the application's business logic.

Remediation

Apply the patched version of WolfSSL that enforces strict tag-length validation in EVP_DigestVerifyFinal. Consult the WolfSSL security advisory to identify the specific patched version for your deployment branch. Organizations should prioritize patching in systems where HMAC verification is security-critical—particularly those protecting API authentication, message integrity, or embedded firmware verification. For systems unable to patch immediately, compensate by implementing additional message integrity checks or cryptographic binding at the application layer, though these should not replace the upstream fix.

Patch guidance

Contact WolfSSL or consult their official security advisory to obtain the patched release that addresses this zero-length tag validation. Update your WolfSSL library and rebuild/redeploy affected applications. After patching, conduct regression testing to ensure HMAC verification behavior remains correct for legitimate use cases. If you maintain a software bill of materials (SBOM), update the WolfSSL component version and mark this vulnerability as resolved. Document the patch date and version for compliance and audit purposes.

Detection guidance

Monitor systems for unexpected or anomalous HMAC verification results, particularly any sudden acceptance of previously-rejected signatures or verification bypass events. Examine WolfSSL library versions in your inventory through SBOM scanning or binary analysis. Review cryptographic verification logs and authentication failure rates for spikes that might indicate active exploitation attempts. On systems where detailed audit logging is available, look for verification events with unexpectedly short or empty tags being processed. Implement application-level monitoring to detect when HMAC verification succeeds with suspiciously truncated authentication codes.

Why prioritize this

This vulnerability directly undermines cryptographic authentication—a foundational security control. The combination of high CVSS (7.5), network-accessible exploitation path (AV:N), and the criticality of message authentication in distributed systems warrants immediate prioritization. WolfSSL's use in embedded and IoT ecosystems means affected deployments may be harder to patch quickly, further elevating priority. Unlike vulnerabilities requiring complex preconditions, this flaw can be exploited by any attacker with message-sending capability, making it a clear and present risk to integrity-dependent operations.

Risk score, explained

The CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5 reflects a HIGH-severity integrity breach with minimal exploitation friction. The network-accessible vector (AV:N), lack of required privileges (PR:N), absence of user interaction (UI:N), and single-scope context (S:U) yield a straightforward attack path. The vulnerability does not directly affect confidentiality (C:N) but causes high impact on integrity (I:H), as forged messages can pass authentication. The fixed LOW complexity (AC:L) confirms that no special conditions are required. This score appropriately captures the threat level for cryptographic verification failures.

Frequently asked questions

How do I know if my WolfSSL deployment is affected?

Check your WolfSSL version against the WolfSSL security advisory for this CVE. Any version prior to the patched release is vulnerable. Review your deployment to confirm you are using the EVP_DigestVerifyFinal path (common in OpenSSL-compatible code) rather than WolfSSL's native APIs, which may have different behavior.

Can an attacker remotely exploit this without authenticated access?

Yes. The vulnerability requires only that an attacker can send or influence messages that reach the HMAC verification function. No credentials or special privileges are needed. If your application accepts HMAC-protected messages from untrusted sources, it is exploitable.

What is the practical impact if I do not patch?

Any message protected by HMAC verification becomes forgeable. An attacker can craft or modify messages and attach a zero-length or undersized tag that will be accepted as valid. The concrete risk depends on what your application protects with HMAC—API calls, configuration, firmware, tokens, etc.—but the authentication guarantee is lost.

Should I use a different cryptographic library as a temporary mitigation?

Switching libraries is not practical for most deployments. Instead, focus on patching WolfSSL promptly. If delay is unavoidable, implement compensating controls such as additional application-layer integrity checks, but recognize these are not a substitute for fixing the underlying cryptographic flaw.

This analysis is based on the published CVE record and vendor advisory information as of the date of publication. Specific patch versions, affected software versions, and detailed remediation steps must be verified against the official WolfSSL security advisory. Organizations should conduct their own risk assessment and testing in their environment. This explainer does not constitute security advice tailored to your specific deployment; consult with your security team and the vendor for authoritative guidance. Exploit code, proof-of-concept details, and attack walkthroughs are intentionally omitted from this document. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-08-04. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).