Gnupg: community verdicts
5 notable / known-exploited Gnupg CVEs the community has triaged.
- CVE-2021-33560HIGH 7.5Real · low riskEPSS 2%
Libgcrypt before 1.8.8 and 1.9.x before 1.9.3 mishandles ElGamal encryption because it lacks exponent blinding to address a side-channel attack against mpi_powm, and the window size is not chosen appropriately. This, for example, affects use of ElGamal in OpenPGP.
- 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-2022-3219LOW 3.3EPSS 0%
GnuPG can be made to spin on a relatively small input by (for example) crafting a public key with thousands of signatures attached, compressed down to just a few KB.
- CVE-2025-30258LOW 2.7EPSS 0%
In GnuPG before 2.5.5, if a user chooses to import a certificate with certain crafted subkey data that lacks a valid backsig or that has incorrect usage flags, the user loses the ability to verify signatures made from certain other signing keys, aka a "verification DoS."
- CVE-2025-68972MED 5.9EPSS 0%
In GnuPG through 2.4.8, if a signed message has \f at the end of a plaintext line, an adversary can construct a modified message that places additional text after the signed material, such that signature verification of the modified message succeeds (although an "invalid armor" message is printed during verification). This is related to use of \f as a marker to denote truncation of a long plaintext line.