Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.18% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-72705High confidence
Rocq Prover before 9.2.0 Guard Checker Accepts Fixpoint Passed as a Higher-Order Argument
rocq-prover · rocq
6.8MediumCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Patch availableMedium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs rocq-prover rocq and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-72705 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityrocq: Rocq Prover: Logical inconsistency via untracked higher-order fixpoint arguments
The vendor explicitly states that these products are not affected by this CVE.
- All currently supported Red Hat products
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Rocq Prover. The guard checker component fails to properly track recursive calls when a fixpoint passes itself as a higher-order argument to another fixpoint. This oversight allows for the creation of a type that is logically equivalent to its own negation, which can lead to the generation of a 'False' statement within purely definitional code. Such a vulnerability compromises the logical soundness of the prover, potentially impacting the integrity of formal proofs.
- Remediation
- No remediation text is recorded.
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
The guard checker in Rocq Prover does not follow recursive calls made through a fixpoint's own arguments. A fixpoint may pass itself as a higher-order argument to a second fixpoint, which then applies it to a value that is not a subterm of the structural argument. Passing the recursive function to a plain definition is rejected because the checker unfolds the definition and observes the call, but passing it to a fixpoint is accepted because higher-order recursive calls through fixpoint arguments are not tracked. This admits a type that is definitionally equal to its own negation, so self-application produces False in purely definitional code, without tactics, axioms, plugins or unsafe flags, and Print Assumptions reports the result as closed under the global context. Fixed in Rocq 9.2.0.
What
The guard checker in Rocq Prover does not follow recursive calls made through a fixpoint's own arguments. A fixpoint may pass itself as a higher-order argument to a second fixpoint, which then applies it to a value that is not a subterm of the structural argument. Passing the recursive function to a plain definition is rejected because the checker unfolds the definition and observes the call, but passing it to a fixpoint is accepted because higher-order recursive calls through fixpoint arguments are not tracked. This admits a type that is definitionally equal to its own negation, so self-application produces False in purely definitional code, without tactics, axioms, plugins or unsafe flags, and Print Assumptions reports the result as closed under the global context. Fixed in Rocq 9.2.0.
Why
The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
The guard checker in Rocq Prover does not follow recursive calls made through a fixpoint's own arguments. A fixpoint may pass itself as a higher-order argument to a second fixpoint, which then applies it to a value that is not a subterm of the structural argument. Passing the recursive function to a plain definition is rejected because the checker unfolds the definition and observes the call, but passing it to a fixpoint is accepted because higher-order recursive calls through fixpoint arguments are not tracked. This admits a type that is definitionally equal to its own negation, so self-application produces False in purely definitional code, without tactics, axioms, plugins or unsafe flags, and Print Assumptions reports the result as closed under the global context. Fixed in Rocq 9.2.0.
Why
The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-670 ↗
CWE-670: Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation. The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCNoneVulnerable-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- rocq: < 9.2.0
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 24 Aug 2026 · Last source change 24 Sept 2026, 14:18 UTC · CWE-670 · Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-25
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-65141
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- < 9.2.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- rocq: < 9.2.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Public exploit evidencePublic exploit evidence changed from No public exploit to Public exploit reference.CVE.org ↗
- Before
- No public exploit
- After
- Public exploit reference
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-65141 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-65141"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
- CVSS scoreCVSS vector changed while the displayed base score remained 6.8.CNA ↗
- Before
- 6.8 (CVSS 4.0 · CNA · CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X)
- After
- 6.8 (CVSS 4.0 · CNA · CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N)
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.