CVE-2026-53762

If you build VeraCrypt with the WOLFCRYPT crypto backend, your PIM and iteration count settings are being silently ignored. This is not a subtle implementation flaw — it is a complete disconnect between what the UI presents and what the WOLFCRYPT code path actually does. When you set a PIM of 500,000 or specify a high iteration count, those parameters are parsed, displayed in the UI, and then discarded. The actual key derivation uses HKDF with effectively zero iterations, producing cryptographically weaker output than the configuration implies. The danger here is the absence of any warning. There's no performance penalty to alert you, no error message, no log entry. Volumes created under WOLFCRYPT builds mount normally and appear identical to volumes created with the standard OpenSSL backend. You cannot detect the degradation from within the running system — only by knowing your build configuration can you确定 you're affected. Check whether your VeraCrypt binary was compiled with WOLFCRYPT=1. On Linux, this is common in distribution packages that avoid OpenSSL dependencies. If you manage VeraCrypt installations across multiple systems, audit the build configuration — don't assume the default build. If you have volumes created on a WOLFCRYPT build, you must recreate them under a standard build to get the configured key derivation strength. The migration is mandatory: the fix changes how keys are derived, making old volumes unreadable if you upgrade without recreating them. The volume recreation requirement creates significant patch resistance, especially for large containers or organizational archives. Many users will defer this operation indefinitely, leaving a growing population of volumes with degraded key derivation. This compounds over time — every month, more containers are created on affected builds, and the eventual remediation cost climbs. The severity assessment of this CVE should account for this silent, accumulating failure mode: users have no detection opportunity and no compensating controls because they don't know their security parameters were ineffective.

Reviewed through automated stages and approved by a human before publication.