CVE-2026-13505 — bc-fips
CVE-2026-13505 is a CWE-772 vulnerability in org.bouncycastle:bc-fips. A fix is available for org.bouncycastle:bc-fips — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Bouncy Castle: Zeroisation of sensitive key material on garbage collection relies on finalization.
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2026-13505.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
Real-World Exposure
org.bouncycastle:bc-fips☕org.bouncycastle:bc-fips☕org.bouncycastle:bc-fipsReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Maven packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
In 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), sensitive key material held by the AES and DESede engines, the SP 800-90A DRBGs, SymmetricSecretKey and the PBKD and scrypt parameter classes was zeroised on garbage collection by overriding Object.finalize. Finalization runs at an unspecified time and in an unspecified order and is serviced by a single finalizer thread, so where objects carrying a finalizer are allocated faster than that thread retires them the pending-finalization queue grows without bound: disposal falls arbitrarily far behind, which can contribute to an OutOfMemoryError under load, and the key material those objects hold stays resident in the heap for as long as they are queued, defeating the purpose of the zeroisation. The behaviour was not a problem on Java 8 or Java 11; it is later JVMs, on which finalization has been deprecated and progressively de-emphasised, where it becomes one. Disposal of these classes now runs from a java.lang.ref.Cleaner registered in the multi-release jdk1.9 overlay, so on Java 9 and later it no longer depends on the finalizer being scheduled. Bouncy Castle for Java (bcprov) and Bouncy Castle for Java LTS are not affected, as neither implements the finalizer-based zeroisation scheme.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| ☕Maven | org.bouncycastle:bc-fips | all versions | 1.0.2.7org.bouncycastle:bc-fips:1.0.2.7 |
| ☕Maven | org.bouncycastle:bc-fips | ≥ 2.0.0&&< 2.0.2 | 2.0.2org.bouncycastle:bc-fips:2.0.2 |
| ☕Maven | org.bouncycastle:bc-fips | ≥ 2.1.0&&< 2.1.3 | 2.1.3org.bouncycastle:bc-fips:2.1.3 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for org.bouncycastle:bc-fips, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update org.bouncycastle:bc-fips to 1.0.2.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-13505 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
This is an Important flaw in Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) affecting Red Hat products running on Java 9 and later. Sensitive cryptographic key material may remain in memory longer than intended due to delayed zeroisation, increasing the window for information disclosure. This persistence also risks denial of…
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for CVE-2026-13505 (CC BY 4.0)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-13505 in your dependencies?
Find it across Maven, including transitive dependencies.