OpenSSL third-party maintenance
OpenSSL 4.0
OpenSSL 4.0
Third-party maintenance for the OpenSSL 4.0 costs 40-70% less than the OEM support contract, with 24/7 engineering support and same-day replacement parts. Coverage is available across North America, the United Kingdom and Europe, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, with next-business-day or 4-hour onsite response and no OEM software contract required.
- 24x7 support desk
- 4-hour onsite in major metros
- Spares held for every model we quote
- 5+ years past end of service life
- No OEM software contract required
- One contract for the whole rack
EOSL Date: May 14, 2027
Specifications
- product
- openssl
- release
- 4.0
- product Label
- OpenSSL
- release Label
- 4.0
- codename
- lts
- latest Version
- 4.0.3
- release Date
- 2026-04-14
- maintained
- true
- source Url
- https://endoflife.date/openssl
Lifecycle Dates
- End of Service Life
- May 14, 2027
- Last OEM Support
- May 14, 2027
OpenSSL 4.0 Third-Party Maintenance Pricing
Choose the response level you need. We send an indicative price within 24 hours and a firm quote within 48, typically 40-70% below the OEM renewal.
Next business day
Price in 24 hours
Parts and engineer onsite next business day; 24x7 phone support.
Quote this level4-hour onsite
Price in 24 hours
4-hour onsite response in major metros, business hours.
Quote this level24x7, 4-hour onsite
Price in 24 hours
Mission-critical: 4-hour onsite response around the clock, 365 days.
Quote this levelCoverage across North America, the United Kingdom and Europe, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. Hardware maintenance does not require an active VMware, Broadcom or other OEM software contract.
OEM vs. 3rd Party Support
See how 3rd party maintenance compares to traditional OEM support for your OpenSSL 4.0. Get the same level of service at a fraction of the cost.
| Feature | OEM Support | 3rd Party Support |
|---|---|---|
| Post-EOSL Support | ||
| 24/7/365 Support | ||
| Same-Day Parts Replacement | Limited | |
| Mixed-Vendor Support | ||
| Flexible Contract Terms | Annual Only | Month-to-Month Available |
| Asset Lifecycle Extension | ||
| OEM-Trained Engineers |
Why Choose 3rd Party Support for OpenSSL 4.0?
Save 40-70%
Dramatically reduce your maintenance costs while maintaining the same level of support coverage.
Extend Asset Life
Continue using your OpenSSL 4.0 well beyond the OEM end-of-life date.
24/7 Expert Support
OEM-trained engineers available around the clock with same-day parts replacement.
OpenSSL 4.0 Support: Frequently Asked Questions
Is the OpenSSL 4.0 still supported?
Yes. The OpenSSL 4.0 is currently supported, and third-party maintenance is available as an alternative to the OEM contract at 40-70% lower cost.
When is the OpenSSL 4.0 end of service life (EOSL) date?
OpenSSL lists the end of service life for the OpenSSL 4.0 as May 14, 2027.
Can I keep using the OpenSSL 4.0 after its EOSL date?
Yes. EOSL means OpenSSL stops selling support contracts and issuing updates — the equipment itself keeps working. Third-party maintenance provides engineering support and replacement parts for as long as you choose to run it.
How much does third-party support for the OpenSSL 4.0 cost?
Typically 40-70% below the OEM maintenance renewal price. Exact pricing depends on quantity, service level and location. You get an indicative price within 24 hours and a firm quote within 48.
Known Vulnerabilities Affecting OpenSSL 4.0
43 published CVEs affect the OpenSSL 4.0, including 25 rated critical or high severity. Our 24/7 engineers help you assess exposure, prioritize fixes and apply available patches.
| CVE | Severity | CVSS | Published | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-63073 | CRITICAL | 9.8 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response sender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`. Impact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client that enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose subject becomes the default expected sender. CWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String) Description: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update() con |
| CVE-2026-75803 | CRITICAL | 9.1 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty ciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication tag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function. Impact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and expecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages. CWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value) Description: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a |
| CVE-2026-34182 | CRITICAL | 9.1 | Jun 9, 2026 | Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises. Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity validation for a given message. In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing AuthEnvelopedData with the ciph |
| CVE-2026-45447 | HIGH | 8.8 | Jun 9, 2026 | Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification. Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap corruption, or potentially remote code execution. When processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData digestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may incorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent use of the BIO by the calling app |
| CVE-2026-84782 | HIGH | 8.2 | Sep 29, 2026 | Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle a handshake message write that is suspended part-way through. The retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and the retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write needs to resume correctly. Impact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory to the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial of Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region. CWE: |
| CVE-2026-7383 | HIGH | 8.1 | Jun 9, 2026 | Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap buffer overflow. Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour. In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and UNIVERSALSTRING ( |
| CVE-2026-84784 | HIGH | 7.5 | Sep 29, 2026 | Issue summary: A malicious remote peer may flood the local QUIC stack with NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames by avoiding a limit check on how many connection IDs the remote QUIC stack can use. Impact summary: The local QUIC stack sends a RETIRE_CONN_ID frame for every NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame it receives. The RETIRE_CONN_ID frame is dispatched via the Control Frame Queue (CFQ). If the remote peer also withholds ACKs, then it can force the local stack to allocate ~400MB (depending on ACK delay). CWE: CWE |
| CVE-2026-84783 | HIGH | 7.5 | Sep 29, 2026 | Issue summary: The first concurrent use of the same X.509 certificate by several threads may cause its cached extension data to be freed while another thread is still using it. Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated peer could crash a multi-threaded TLS client, or a multi-threaded TLS server that requests client certificates, if the first certificate chains built to the same trusted CA certificate are built by several connections at the same time. This is a use-after-free read, which is like |
| CVE-2026-72897 | HIGH | 7.5 | Sep 29, 2026 | Issue summary: A TLS server that calls SSL_set_SSL_CTX() to switch a connection to a different SSL_CTX part way through a handshake may access memory beyond the end of an internal array if the replacement context knows about more provider signature algorithms than the context the connection was created from. Applications which never call SSL_set_SSL_CTX() are not affected. Impact summary: A remote peer may be able to cause a small out-of-bounds read, and in some circumstances a fixed-value out- |
| CVE-2026-54873 | HIGH | 7.5 | Sep 29, 2026 | Issue summary: QUIC process may keep memory for QUIC packet buffer for much longer period than necessary. Impact summary: Remote peer can exploit this vulnerability by sending maliciously crafted packets, making the local QUIC stack to keep the memory for packet buffers allocated. The time for which the memory remains allocated is entirely under the control of the potentially malicious remote peer. CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling Description: To save copy op |
| CVE-2026-63076 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only checks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its ASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can contain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an invalid pointer. Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application acting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client talking to a malicious or intercepted CMP ser |
| CVE-2026-63075 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the connection. Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent QUIC connections. CWE: CWE-770: Alloc |
| CVE-2026-63072 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: OpenSSL CMS decryption sizes the key-unwrap output buffer based on querying the unwrapped key size, but the AES-WRAP-PAD unwrap primitive can write and cleanse more bytes than that query reports, causing an 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write. Impact summary: An attacker who supplies a crafted CMS message can trigger a deterministic 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write when the victim decrypts it with CMS_decrypt(), corrupting the heap and typically resulting in a Denial of Service. CWE: |
| CVE-2026-54874 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: Receiving a DTLS record for a future epoch while a handshake is in progress causes OpenSSL to buffer far more memory than the record itself requires. Impact summary: A peer can use a small amount of network traffic to make an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint retain a disproportionately large amount of memory, which may lead to a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) Description: While a DTLS handshake is in progress, a peer may legitimately have |
| CVE-2026-18798 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: QUIC server may double free QRX (QUIC record layer RX) object when channel creation fails for initial packet. Impact summary: Double free leads to heap corruption, which typically results in termination of QUIC server process, leading to Denial of Service. There is so far no evidence that this double free is exploitable for remote code execution, thus it is considered highly improbable. CWE: CWE-415: Double Free Description: In order to validate initial packet, OpenSSL QUIC st |
| CVE-2026-14457 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 25, 2026 | Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally, a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension. Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are poss |
| CVE-2026-14456 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 13, 2026 | Issue summary: When an OpenSSL QUIC server (Listener SSL object) processes valid QUIC Initial packets for unknown destination connection IDs, it can allocate and queue new incoming channels without enforcing any limit. Impact summary: A remote peer that can make many Initial packets reach the server listener faster than the application accepts connections, can cause the memory allocated to store the per-channel state to grow without any limits, potentially making the QUIC listener unavailable a |
| CVE-2026-54876 | HIGH | 7.5 | Aug 5, 2026 | Issue summary: A malicious TLS server can cause a memory leak in a TLS client that has enabled OCSP response checking by sending an OCSP response that contains no single response entries. Impact summary: An attacker can leak an attacker-tunable amount of memory per TLS handshake in a victim client application. A long-running client that repeatedly connects to a malicious server can have its memory exhausted, resulting in a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-401: Missing Release of Memory after Effect |
| CVE-2026-9076 | HIGH | 7.5 | Jun 9, 2026 | Issue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap) processes attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK cipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key(). Impact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information disclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the |
| CVE-2026-45445 | HIGH | 7.5 | Jun 9, 2026 | Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not |
Showing the 20 most severe of 43 known CVEs.
Get Third Party SupportRelated OpenSSL Products
All OpenSSL products →OpenSSL 4.0
Price in 24 hours · 40-70% below OEM