CVE-2026-6330
Is CVE-2026-6330 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
public exploits
links to sources — we don’t host codeUnverified proof-of-concept code has been published. It may or may not be functional — assess before relying on it.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
The ML-KEM ARM64 NEON ciphertext comparison only compares half of the input, breaking the Fujisaki-Okamoto transform's implicit rejection and weakening IND-CCA2 security on that code path. The constant-time comparison effectively ignored part of the re-encrypted ciphertext, so a decapsulating party could fail to detect a manipulated ciphertext and proceed without the standard's required implicit rejection.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-6330)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-6330"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-6330/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-6330"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
- 0
No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-327.
- CVE-2018-6829HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 2%
cipher/elgamal.c in Libgcrypt through 1.8.2, when used to encrypt messages directly, improperly encodes plaintexts, which allows attackers to obtain sensitive information by reading ciphertext data (i.e., it does not have semantic security in face of a ciphertext-only attack). The Decisional Diffie-Hellman (DDH) assumption does not hold for Libgcrypt's ElGamal implementation.
- CVE-2026-5588HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 1%
Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA bcpkix on all (pkix modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BCPKIX-FIPS bcpkix on All (pkix modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BCPIX-LTS bcpkix on All (pkix modules). This vulnerability is associated with program files JcaContentVerifierProviderBuilder.Java, JcaContentVerfierProviderBuilder.Java. This issue affects BC-JAVA: from 1.67 before 1.80.2, from 1.81 before 1.81.1, from 1.82 before 1.84; BCPKIX-FIPS: from 2.0.6 before 2.0.11, from 2.1.7 before 2.1.11; BCPIX-LTS: from 2.73.7 before 2.73.11.
- CVE-2025-14813HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 0%
: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. BC-JAVA bcprov on all (core modules). This vulnerability is associated with program files G3413CTRBlockCipher. This issue affects BC-JAVA: from 1.59 before 1.80.2, from 1.81 before 1.81.1, from 1.82 before 1.84.