CVE-2026-2673: OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may choose unexpected key agreement group
Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword.
Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.
If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.
As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's
configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the
only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction).
OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat'
list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure.
If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server
the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by
the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been
more preferred, if included.
The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly
equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among
the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group
from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares,
the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello
Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group.
The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in
default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the
various desired groups and group 'tuples'.
No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies
outside the FIPS boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released.
OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released.
OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue.
Security readout for executives and security teams
Some OpenSSL TLS 1.3 servers may choose a less preferred key agreement group than intended. The main business concern is weakened cryptographic posture, especially where post-quantum hybrid groups were expected. This is not described as remote code execution, and the provided sources do not show active exploitation. Exposure is likely on TLS 1.3 servers using OpenSSL 3.5 or 3.6 with key exchange group configuration that includes DEFAULT. Systems on OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2, 1.1.1, and OpenSSL FIPS modules are listed as unaffected. Treat as a planned cryptography hygiene update with moderate priority. Prioritize internet-facing TLS services and environments relying on post-quantum hybrid key agreement claims, because the issue can undermine expected cryptographic negotiation without obvious service failure. Mitigation focus: Upgrade OpenSSL 3.6 deployments to 3.6.2 per vendor guidance.; Upgrade OpenSSL 3.5 deployments to 3.5.6 per vendor guidance.; Review TLS group configuration for DEFAULT interpolation on servers..
Prepared
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Potential ATT&CK relevance
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
cwe · low confidence lookup
CWE-757: Exact CWE lookup
Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
CWE-757 · source CWE mapping
Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')
Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.