Action not permitted
Modal body text goes here.
Modal Title
Modal Body
wid-sec-w-2024-2112
Vulnerability from csaf_certbund
Published
2024-09-10 22:00
Modified
2025-01-14 23:00
Summary
Insyde UEFI Firmware: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen Denial of Service
Notes
Das BSI ist als Anbieter für die eigenen, zur Nutzung bereitgestellten Inhalte nach den allgemeinen Gesetzen verantwortlich. Nutzerinnen und Nutzer sind jedoch dafür verantwortlich, die Verwendung und/oder die Umsetzung der mit den Inhalten bereitgestellten Informationen sorgfältig im Einzelfall zu prüfen.
Produktbeschreibung
InsydeH2O UEFI BIOS ist eine proprietäre, lizenzierte UEFI-BIOS-Firmware, die Intel und AMD basierte Computer unterstützt.
Angriff
Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Insyde UEFI Firmware ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen.
Betroffene Betriebssysteme
- BIOS/Firmware
{ document: { aggregate_severity: { text: "mittel", }, category: "csaf_base", csaf_version: "2.0", distribution: { tlp: { label: "WHITE", url: "https://www.first.org/tlp/", }, }, lang: "de-DE", notes: [ { category: "legal_disclaimer", text: "Das BSI ist als Anbieter für die eigenen, zur Nutzung bereitgestellten Inhalte nach den allgemeinen Gesetzen verantwortlich. Nutzerinnen und Nutzer sind jedoch dafür verantwortlich, die Verwendung und/oder die Umsetzung der mit den Inhalten bereitgestellten Informationen sorgfältig im Einzelfall zu prüfen.", }, { category: "description", text: "InsydeH2O UEFI BIOS ist eine proprietäre, lizenzierte UEFI-BIOS-Firmware, die Intel und AMD basierte Computer unterstützt.", title: "Produktbeschreibung", }, { category: "summary", text: "Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Insyde UEFI Firmware ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen.", title: "Angriff", }, { category: "general", text: "- BIOS/Firmware", title: "Betroffene Betriebssysteme", }, ], publisher: { category: "other", contact_details: "csaf-provider@cert-bund.de", name: "Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik", namespace: "https://www.bsi.bund.de", }, references: [ { category: "self", summary: "WID-SEC-W-2024-2112 - CSAF Version", url: "https://wid.cert-bund.de/.well-known/csaf/white/2024/wid-sec-w-2024-2112.json", }, { category: "self", summary: "WID-SEC-2024-2112 - Portal Version", url: "https://wid.cert-bund.de/portal/wid/securityadvisory?name=WID-SEC-2024-2112", }, { category: "external", summary: "Insyde Security Pledge INSYDE-SA-2024009 vom 2024-09-10", url: "https://www.insyde.com/security-pledge/SA-2024009", }, { category: "external", summary: "HPE Security Bulletin", url: "https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-hpesbst04758en_us&hprpt_id=ALERT_HPE_3075763&jumpid=em_pom8nu6hj_aid-521053889", }, { category: "external", summary: "Dell Security Advisory DSA-2025-020 vom 2025-01-14", url: "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/de-de/000250484/dsa-2025-020", }, ], source_lang: "en-US", title: "Insyde UEFI Firmware: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen Denial of Service", tracking: { current_release_date: "2025-01-14T23:00:00.000+00:00", generator: { date: "2025-01-15T09:14:02.948+00:00", engine: { name: "BSI-WID", version: "1.3.10", }, }, id: "WID-SEC-W-2024-2112", initial_release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", revision_history: [ { date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", number: "1", summary: "Initiale Fassung", }, { date: "2025-01-07T23:00:00.000+00:00", number: "2", summary: "Neue Updates von HP aufgenommen", }, { date: "2025-01-14T23:00:00.000+00:00", number: "3", summary: "Neue Updates von Dell aufgenommen", }, ], status: "final", version: "3", }, }, product_tree: { branches: [ { branches: [ { category: "product_name", name: "Dell BIOS", product: { name: "Dell BIOS", product_id: "T032770", product_identification_helper: { cpe: "cpe:/h:dell:bios:-", }, }, }, ], category: "vendor", name: "Dell", }, { branches: [ { category: "product_name", name: "HPE Switch", product: { name: "HPE Switch", product_id: "T005119", product_identification_helper: { cpe: "cpe:/h:hp:switch:-", }, }, }, ], category: "vendor", name: "HPE", }, { branches: [ { branches: [ { category: "product_version_range", name: "OpenSSL <3.2.1", product: { name: "Insyde UEFI Firmware OpenSSL <3.2.1", product_id: "T037494", }, }, { category: "product_version", name: "OpenSSL 3.2.1", product: { name: "Insyde UEFI Firmware OpenSSL 3.2.1", product_id: "T037494-fixed", product_identification_helper: { cpe: "cpe:/h:insyde:uefi:openssl__3.2.1", }, }, }, ], category: "product_name", name: "UEFI Firmware", }, ], category: "vendor", name: "Insyde", }, ], }, vulnerabilities: [ { cve: "CVE-2023-5678", notes: [ { category: "description", text: "Es bestehen mehrere Schwachstellen in der Insyde UEFI Firmware. Diese Fehler existieren in der OpenSSL-Komponente wegen mehrerer Pufferüberlaufprobleme. Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann diese Schwachstellen ausnutzen, um den Dienst zu beenden und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen.", }, ], product_status: { known_affected: [ "T037494", "T005119", "T032770", ], }, release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", title: "CVE-2023-5678", }, { cve: "CVE-2024-0727", notes: [ { category: "description", text: "Es bestehen mehrere Schwachstellen in der Insyde UEFI Firmware. Diese Fehler existieren in der OpenSSL-Komponente wegen mehrerer Pufferüberlaufprobleme. Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann diese Schwachstellen ausnutzen, um den Dienst zu beenden und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen.", }, ], product_status: { known_affected: [ "T037494", "T005119", "T032770", ], }, release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", title: "CVE-2024-0727", }, { cve: "CVE-2024-2511", notes: [ { category: "description", text: "Es bestehen mehrere Schwachstellen in der Insyde UEFI Firmware. Diese Fehler existieren in der OpenSSL-Komponente wegen mehrerer Pufferüberlaufprobleme. Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann diese Schwachstellen ausnutzen, um den Dienst zu beenden und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen.", }, ], product_status: { known_affected: [ "T037494", "T005119", "T032770", ], }, release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", title: "CVE-2024-2511", }, { cve: "CVE-2024-4603", notes: [ { category: "description", text: "Es bestehen mehrere Schwachstellen in der Insyde UEFI Firmware. Diese Fehler existieren in der OpenSSL-Komponente wegen mehrerer Pufferüberlaufprobleme. Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann diese Schwachstellen ausnutzen, um den Dienst zu beenden und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen.", }, ], product_status: { known_affected: [ "T037494", "T005119", "T032770", ], }, release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", title: "CVE-2024-4603", }, { cve: "CVE-2024-4741", notes: [ { category: "description", text: "Es bestehen mehrere Schwachstellen in der Insyde UEFI Firmware. Diese Fehler existieren in der OpenSSL-Komponente wegen mehrerer Pufferüberlaufprobleme. Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann diese Schwachstellen ausnutzen, um den Dienst zu beenden und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen.", }, ], product_status: { known_affected: [ "T037494", "T005119", "T032770", ], }, release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", title: "CVE-2024-4741", }, { cve: "CVE-2024-5535", notes: [ { category: "description", text: "Es bestehen mehrere Schwachstellen in der Insyde UEFI Firmware. Diese Fehler existieren in der OpenSSL-Komponente wegen mehrerer Pufferüberlaufprobleme. Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann diese Schwachstellen ausnutzen, um den Dienst zu beenden und einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen.", }, ], product_status: { known_affected: [ "T037494", "T005119", "T032770", ], }, release_date: "2024-09-10T22:00:00.000+00:00", title: "CVE-2024-5535", }, ], }
cve-2024-4603
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-05-16 15:21
Modified
2024-10-14 14:56
Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
Issue summary: Checking excessively long DSA keys or parameters may be very
slow.
Impact summary: Applications that use the functions EVP_PKEY_param_check()
or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check a DSA public key or DSA parameters may
experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked
have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of
Service.
The functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() perform
various checks on DSA parameters. Some of those computations take a long time
if the modulus (`p` parameter) is too large.
Trying to use a very large modulus is slow and OpenSSL will not allow using
public keys with a modulus which is over 10,000 bits in length for signature
verification. However the key and parameter check functions do not limit
the modulus size when performing the checks.
An application that calls EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()
and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be
vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.
These functions are not called by OpenSSL itself on untrusted DSA keys so
only applications that directly call these functions may be vulnerable.
Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey and pkeyparam command line applications
when using the `-check` option.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.
The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue.
References
Impacted products
{ containers: { adp: [ { providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-08-01T20:47:41.528Z", orgId: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", shortName: "CVE", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240516.txt", }, { name: "3.0.14 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3559e868e58005d15c6013a0c1fd832e51c73397", }, { name: "3.1.6 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9c39b3858091c152f52513c066ff2c5a47969f0d", }, { name: "3.2.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/da343d0605c826ef197aceedc67e8e04f065f740", }, { name: "3.3.1 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/53ea06486d296b890d565fb971b2764fcd826e7e", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/05/16/2", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240621-0001/", }, ], title: "CVE Program Container", }, { affected: [ { cpes: [ "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", ], defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "openssl", vendor: "openssl", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.0.14", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.6", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.2.2", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.3.1", status: "affected", version: "3.3.0", versionType: "semver", }, ], }, ], metrics: [ { cvssV3_1: { attackComplexity: "LOW", attackVector: "NETWORK", availabilityImpact: "LOW", baseScore: 5.3, baseSeverity: "MEDIUM", confidentialityImpact: "NONE", integrityImpact: "NONE", privilegesRequired: "NONE", scope: "UNCHANGED", userInteraction: "NONE", vectorString: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L", version: "3.1", }, }, { other: { content: { id: "CVE-2024-4603", options: [ { Exploitation: "none", }, { Automatable: "yes", }, { "Technical Impact": "partial", }, ], role: "CISA Coordinator", timestamp: "2024-05-16T18:27:25.638098Z", version: "2.0.3", }, type: "ssvc", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-834", description: "CWE-834 Excessive Iteration", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-08-13T15:11:57.009Z", orgId: "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0", shortName: "CISA-ADP", }, title: "CISA ADP Vulnrichment", }, ], cna: { affected: [ { defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "OpenSSL", vendor: "OpenSSL", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.0.14", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.6", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.2.2", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.3.1", status: "affected", version: "3.3.0", versionType: "semver", }, ], }, ], credits: [ { lang: "en", type: "finder", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "OSS-Fuzz", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "Tomas Mraz", }, ], datePublic: "2024-05-16T00:00:00.000Z", descriptions: [ { lang: "en", supportingMedia: [ { base64: false, type: "text/html", value: "Issue summary: Checking excessively long DSA keys or parameters may be very<br>slow.<br><br>Impact summary: Applications that use the functions EVP_PKEY_param_check()<br>or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check a DSA public key or DSA parameters may<br>experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked<br>have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of<br>Service.<br><br>The functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() perform<br>various checks on DSA parameters. Some of those computations take a long time<br>if the modulus (`p` parameter) is too large.<br><br>Trying to use a very large modulus is slow and OpenSSL will not allow using<br>public keys with a modulus which is over 10,000 bits in length for signature<br>verification. However the key and parameter check functions do not limit<br>the modulus size when performing the checks.<br><br>An application that calls EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()<br>and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be<br>vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.<br><br>These functions are not called by OpenSSL itself on untrusted DSA keys so<br>only applications that directly call these functions may be vulnerable.<br><br>Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey and pkeyparam command line applications<br>when using the `-check` option.<br><br>The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.<br><br>The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue.", }, ], value: "Issue summary: Checking excessively long DSA keys or parameters may be very\nslow.\n\nImpact summary: Applications that use the functions EVP_PKEY_param_check()\nor EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check a DSA public key or DSA parameters may\nexperience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked\nhave been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of\nService.\n\nThe functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() perform\nvarious checks on DSA parameters. Some of those computations take a long time\nif the modulus (`p` parameter) is too large.\n\nTrying to use a very large modulus is slow and OpenSSL will not allow using\npublic keys with a modulus which is over 10,000 bits in length for signature\nverification. However the key and parameter check functions do not limit\nthe modulus size when performing the checks.\n\nAn application that calls EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()\nand supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be\nvulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.\n\nThese functions are not called by OpenSSL itself on untrusted DSA keys so\nonly applications that directly call these functions may be vulnerable.\n\nAlso vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey and pkeyparam command line applications\nwhen using the `-check` option.\n\nThe OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.\n\nThe OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue.", }, ], metrics: [ { format: "other", other: { content: { text: "Low", }, type: "https://www.openssl.org/policies/secpolicy.html", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-606", description: "CWE-606 Unchecked Input for Loop Condition", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:56:01.784Z", orgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", shortName: "openssl", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240516.txt", }, { name: "3.0.14 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3559e868e58005d15c6013a0c1fd832e51c73397", }, { name: "3.1.6 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9c39b3858091c152f52513c066ff2c5a47969f0d", }, { name: "3.2.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/da343d0605c826ef197aceedc67e8e04f065f740", }, { name: "3.3.1 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/53ea06486d296b890d565fb971b2764fcd826e7e", }, ], source: { discovery: "UNKNOWN", }, title: "Excessive time spent checking DSA keys and parameters", x_generator: { engine: "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev", }, }, }, cveMetadata: { assignerOrgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", assignerShortName: "openssl", cveId: "CVE-2024-4603", datePublished: "2024-05-16T15:21:20.050Z", dateReserved: "2024-05-07T11:44:02.196Z", dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:56:01.784Z", state: "PUBLISHED", }, dataType: "CVE_RECORD", dataVersion: "5.1", }
cve-2024-2511
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-04-08 13:51
Modified
2025-03-28 19:21
Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
Issue summary: Some non-default TLS server configurations can cause unbounded
memory growth when processing TLSv1.3 sessions
Impact summary: An attacker may exploit certain server configurations to trigger
unbounded memory growth that would lead to a Denial of Service
This problem can occur in TLSv1.3 if the non-default SSL_OP_NO_TICKET option is
being used (but not if early_data support is also configured and the default
anti-replay protection is in use). In this case, under certain conditions, the
session cache can get into an incorrect state and it will fail to flush properly
as it fills. The session cache will continue to grow in an unbounded manner. A
malicious client could deliberately create the scenario for this failure to
force a Denial of Service. It may also happen by accident in normal operation.
This issue only affects TLS servers supporting TLSv1.3. It does not affect TLS
clients.
The FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. OpenSSL
1.0.2 is also not affected by this issue.
References
Impacted products
{ containers: { adp: [ { metrics: [ { cvssV3_1: { attackComplexity: "HIGH", attackVector: "NETWORK", availabilityImpact: "HIGH", baseScore: 5.9, baseSeverity: "MEDIUM", confidentialityImpact: "NONE", integrityImpact: "NONE", privilegesRequired: "NONE", scope: "UNCHANGED", userInteraction: "NONE", vectorString: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", version: "3.1", }, }, { other: { content: { id: "CVE-2024-2511", options: [ { Exploitation: "none", }, { Automatable: "no", }, { "Technical Impact": "partial", }, ], role: "CISA Coordinator", timestamp: "2024-04-09T15:14:41.481807Z", version: "2.0.3", }, type: "ssvc", }, }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2025-03-28T19:21:08.630Z", orgId: "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0", shortName: "CISA-ADP", }, title: "CISA ADP Vulnrichment", }, { providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-08-01T19:18:46.968Z", orgId: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", shortName: "CVE", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240408.txt", }, { name: "3.2.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e9d7083e241670332e0443da0f0d4ffb52829f08", }, { name: "3.1.6 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7e4d731b1c07201ad9374c1cd9ac5263bdf35bce", }, { name: "3.0.14 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b52867a9f618bb955bed2a3ce3db4d4f97ed8e5d", }, { name: "1.1.1y git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/5f8d25770ae6437db119dfc951e207271a326640", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/04/08/5", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240503-0013/", }, ], title: "CVE Program Container", }, ], cna: { affected: [ { defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "OpenSSL", vendor: "OpenSSL", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.2.2", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.6", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.0.14", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "1.1.1y", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "custom", }, ], }, ], credits: [ { lang: "en", type: "finder", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "Manish Patidar (Hewlett Packard Enterprise)", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "Matt Caswell", }, ], datePublic: "2024-04-08T00:00:00.000Z", descriptions: [ { lang: "en", supportingMedia: [ { base64: false, type: "text/html", value: "Issue summary: Some non-default TLS server configurations can cause unbounded<br>memory growth when processing TLSv1.3 sessions<br><br>Impact summary: An attacker may exploit certain server configurations to trigger<br>unbounded memory growth that would lead to a Denial of Service<br><br>This problem can occur in TLSv1.3 if the non-default SSL_OP_NO_TICKET option is<br>being used (but not if early_data support is also configured and the default<br>anti-replay protection is in use). In this case, under certain conditions, the<br>session cache can get into an incorrect state and it will fail to flush properly<br>as it fills. The session cache will continue to grow in an unbounded manner. A<br>malicious client could deliberately create the scenario for this failure to<br>force a Denial of Service. It may also happen by accident in normal operation.<br><br>This issue only affects TLS servers supporting TLSv1.3. It does not affect TLS<br>clients.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. OpenSSL<br>1.0.2 is also not affected by this issue.", }, ], value: "Issue summary: Some non-default TLS server configurations can cause unbounded\nmemory growth when processing TLSv1.3 sessions\n\nImpact summary: An attacker may exploit certain server configurations to trigger\nunbounded memory growth that would lead to a Denial of Service\n\nThis problem can occur in TLSv1.3 if the non-default SSL_OP_NO_TICKET option is\nbeing used (but not if early_data support is also configured and the default\nanti-replay protection is in use). In this case, under certain conditions, the\nsession cache can get into an incorrect state and it will fail to flush properly\nas it fills. The session cache will continue to grow in an unbounded manner. A\nmalicious client could deliberately create the scenario for this failure to\nforce a Denial of Service. It may also happen by accident in normal operation.\n\nThis issue only affects TLS servers supporting TLSv1.3. It does not affect TLS\nclients.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. OpenSSL\n1.0.2 is also not affected by this issue.", }, ], metrics: [ { format: "other", other: { content: { text: "Low", }, type: "https://www.openssl.org/policies/secpolicy.html", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-1325", description: "CWE-1325 Improperly Controlled Sequential Memory Allocation", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:56:00.208Z", orgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", shortName: "openssl", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240408.txt", }, { name: "3.2.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e9d7083e241670332e0443da0f0d4ffb52829f08", }, { name: "3.1.6 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7e4d731b1c07201ad9374c1cd9ac5263bdf35bce", }, { name: "3.0.14 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b52867a9f618bb955bed2a3ce3db4d4f97ed8e5d", }, { name: "1.1.1y git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/5f8d25770ae6437db119dfc951e207271a326640", }, ], source: { discovery: "UNKNOWN", }, title: "Unbounded memory growth with session handling in TLSv1.3", x_generator: { engine: "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev", }, }, }, cveMetadata: { assignerOrgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", assignerShortName: "openssl", cveId: "CVE-2024-2511", datePublished: "2024-04-08T13:51:12.349Z", dateReserved: "2024-03-15T15:33:52.037Z", dateUpdated: "2025-03-28T19:21:08.630Z", state: "PUBLISHED", }, dataType: "CVE_RECORD", dataVersion: "5.1", }
cve-2024-4741
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-11-13 10:20
Modified
2024-11-13 14:49
Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_free_buffers may cause
memory to be accessed that was previously freed in some situations
Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such
as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.
However, only applications that directly call the SSL_free_buffers function are
affected by this issue. Applications that do not call this function are not
vulnerable. Our investigations indicate that this function is rarely used by
applications.
The SSL_free_buffers function is used to free the internal OpenSSL buffer used
when processing an incoming record from the network. The call is only expected
to succeed if the buffer is not currently in use. However, two scenarios have
been identified where the buffer is freed even when still in use.
The first scenario occurs where a record header has been received from the
network and processed by OpenSSL, but the full record body has not yet arrived.
In this case calling SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though a record has only
been partially processed and the buffer is still in use.
The second scenario occurs where a full record containing application data has
been received and processed by OpenSSL but the application has only read part of
this data. Again a call to SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though the buffer
is still in use.
While these scenarios could occur accidentally during normal operation a
malicious attacker could attempt to engineer a stituation where this occurs.
We are not aware of this issue being actively exploited.
The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
References
Impacted products
{ containers: { adp: [ { affected: [ { cpes: [ "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", ], defaultStatus: "unknown", product: "openssl", vendor: "openssl", versions: [ { lessThan: "1.1.1y", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.0.14", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.6", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.2.2", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.3.1", status: "affected", version: "3.3.0", versionType: "semver", }, ], }, ], metrics: [ { cvssV3_1: { attackComplexity: "LOW", attackVector: "NETWORK", availabilityImpact: "HIGH", baseScore: 7.5, baseSeverity: "HIGH", confidentialityImpact: "NONE", integrityImpact: "NONE", privilegesRequired: "NONE", scope: "UNCHANGED", userInteraction: "NONE", vectorString: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", version: "3.1", }, }, { other: { content: { id: "CVE-2024-4741", options: [ { Exploitation: "none", }, { Automatable: "yes", }, { "Technical Impact": "partial", }, ], role: "CISA Coordinator", timestamp: "2024-11-13T14:45:07.092438Z", version: "2.0.3", }, type: "ssvc", }, }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-11-13T14:49:05.977Z", orgId: "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0", shortName: "CISA-ADP", }, title: "CISA ADP Vulnrichment", }, ], cna: { affected: [ { defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "OpenSSL", vendor: "OpenSSL", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.3.1", status: "affected", version: "3.3.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.2.2", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.6", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.0.14", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "1.1.1y", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "custom", }, ], }, ], credits: [ { lang: "en", type: "finder", value: "William Ahern (Akamai)", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", value: "Matt Caswell", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", value: "Watson Ladd (Akamai)", }, ], datePublic: "2024-05-27T23:00:00.000Z", descriptions: [ { lang: "en", supportingMedia: [ { base64: false, type: "text/html", value: "Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_free_buffers may cause<br>memory to be accessed that was previously freed in some situations<br><br>Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such<br>as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.<br>However, only applications that directly call the SSL_free_buffers function are<br>affected by this issue. Applications that do not call this function are not<br>vulnerable. Our investigations indicate that this function is rarely used by<br>applications.<br><br>The SSL_free_buffers function is used to free the internal OpenSSL buffer used<br>when processing an incoming record from the network. The call is only expected<br>to succeed if the buffer is not currently in use. However, two scenarios have<br>been identified where the buffer is freed even when still in use.<br><br>The first scenario occurs where a record header has been received from the<br>network and processed by OpenSSL, but the full record body has not yet arrived.<br>In this case calling SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though a record has only<br>been partially processed and the buffer is still in use.<br><br>The second scenario occurs where a full record containing application data has<br>been received and processed by OpenSSL but the application has only read part of<br>this data. Again a call to SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though the buffer<br>is still in use.<br><br>While these scenarios could occur accidentally during normal operation a<br>malicious attacker could attempt to engineer a stituation where this occurs.<br>We are not aware of this issue being actively exploited.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.", }, ], value: "Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_free_buffers may cause\nmemory to be accessed that was previously freed in some situations\n\nImpact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such\nas the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code.\nHowever, only applications that directly call the SSL_free_buffers function are\naffected by this issue. Applications that do not call this function are not\nvulnerable. Our investigations indicate that this function is rarely used by\napplications.\n\nThe SSL_free_buffers function is used to free the internal OpenSSL buffer used\nwhen processing an incoming record from the network. The call is only expected\nto succeed if the buffer is not currently in use. However, two scenarios have\nbeen identified where the buffer is freed even when still in use.\n\nThe first scenario occurs where a record header has been received from the\nnetwork and processed by OpenSSL, but the full record body has not yet arrived.\nIn this case calling SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though a record has only\nbeen partially processed and the buffer is still in use.\n\nThe second scenario occurs where a full record containing application data has\nbeen received and processed by OpenSSL but the application has only read part of\nthis data. Again a call to SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though the buffer\nis still in use.\n\nWhile these scenarios could occur accidentally during normal operation a\nmalicious attacker could attempt to engineer a stituation where this occurs.\nWe are not aware of this issue being actively exploited.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.", }, ], metrics: [ { format: "other", other: { content: { text: "Low", }, type: "https://www.openssl.org/policies/secpolicy.html", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-416", description: "CWE-416 Use After Free", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-11-13T10:20:50.711Z", orgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", shortName: "openssl", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240528.txt", }, { name: "3.3.1 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e5093133c35ca82874ad83697af76f4b0f7e3bd8", }, { name: "3.2.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/c88c3de51020c37e8706bf7a682a162593053aac", }, { name: "3.1.6 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/704f725b96aa373ee45ecfb23f6abfe8be8d9177", }, { name: "3.0.14 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b3f0eb0a295f58f16ba43ba99dad70d4ee5c437d", }, { name: "1.1.1y git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/f7a045f3143fc6da2ee66bf52d8df04829590dd4", }, ], source: { discovery: "UNKNOWN", }, title: "Use After Free with SSL_free_buffers", x_generator: { engine: "Vulnogram 0.2.0", }, }, }, cveMetadata: { assignerOrgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", assignerShortName: "openssl", cveId: "CVE-2024-4741", datePublished: "2024-11-13T10:20:50.711Z", dateReserved: "2024-05-10T09:56:11.310Z", dateUpdated: "2024-11-13T14:49:05.977Z", state: "PUBLISHED", }, dataType: "CVE_RECORD", dataVersion: "5.1", }
cve-2024-5535
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-06-27 10:30
Modified
2025-02-13 17:54
Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto with an
empty supported client protocols buffer may cause a crash or memory contents to
be sent to the peer.
Impact summary: A buffer overread can have a range of potential consequences
such as unexpected application beahviour or a crash. In particular this issue
could result in up to 255 bytes of arbitrary private data from memory being sent
to the peer leading to a loss of confidentiality. However, only applications
that directly call the SSL_select_next_proto function with a 0 length list of
supported client protocols are affected by this issue. This would normally never
be a valid scenario and is typically not under attacker control but may occur by
accident in the case of a configuration or programming error in the calling
application.
The OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto is typically used by TLS
applications that support ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation) or NPN
(Next Protocol Negotiation). NPN is older, was never standardised and
is deprecated in favour of ALPN. We believe that ALPN is significantly more
widely deployed than NPN. The SSL_select_next_proto function accepts a list of
protocols from the server and a list of protocols from the client and returns
the first protocol that appears in the server list that also appears in the
client list. In the case of no overlap between the two lists it returns the
first item in the client list. In either case it will signal whether an overlap
between the two lists was found. In the case where SSL_select_next_proto is
called with a zero length client list it fails to notice this condition and
returns the memory immediately following the client list pointer (and reports
that there was no overlap in the lists).
This function is typically called from a server side application callback for
ALPN or a client side application callback for NPN. In the case of ALPN the list
of protocols supplied by the client is guaranteed by libssl to never be zero in
length. The list of server protocols comes from the application and should never
normally be expected to be of zero length. In this case if the
SSL_select_next_proto function has been called as expected (with the list
supplied by the client passed in the client/client_len parameters), then the
application will not be vulnerable to this issue. If the application has
accidentally been configured with a zero length server list, and has
accidentally passed that zero length server list in the client/client_len
parameters, and has additionally failed to correctly handle a "no overlap"
response (which would normally result in a handshake failure in ALPN) then it
will be vulnerable to this problem.
In the case of NPN, the protocol permits the client to opportunistically select
a protocol when there is no overlap. OpenSSL returns the first client protocol
in the no overlap case in support of this. The list of client protocols comes
from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length.
However if the SSL_select_next_proto function is accidentally called with a
client_len of 0 then an invalid memory pointer will be returned instead. If the
application uses this output as the opportunistic protocol then the loss of
confidentiality will occur.
This issue has been assessed as Low severity because applications are most
likely to be vulnerable if they are using NPN instead of ALPN - but NPN is not
widely used. It also requires an application configuration or programming error.
Finally, this issue would not typically be under attacker control making active
exploitation unlikely.
The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
Due to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing new releases of
OpenSSL at this time. The fix will be included in the next releases when they
become available.
References
Impacted products
{ containers: { adp: [ { affected: [ { cpes: [ "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", ], defaultStatus: "unknown", product: "openssl", vendor: "openssl", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.3.2", status: "affected", version: "3.3.0", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "3.2.3", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "3.1.7", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "3.0.15", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "1.1.1za", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "1.0.2zk", status: "affected", version: "1.0.2", versionType: "custom", }, ], }, ], metrics: [ { cvssV3_1: { attackComplexity: "LOW", attackVector: "NETWORK", availabilityImpact: "HIGH", baseScore: 9.1, baseSeverity: "CRITICAL", confidentialityImpact: "HIGH", integrityImpact: "NONE", privilegesRequired: "NONE", scope: "UNCHANGED", userInteraction: "NONE", vectorString: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H", version: "3.1", }, }, { other: { content: { id: "CVE-2024-5535", options: [ { Exploitation: "none", }, { Automatable: "yes", }, { "Technical Impact": "partial", }, ], role: "CISA Coordinator", timestamp: "2024-11-08T00:00:00+00:00", version: "2.0.3", }, type: "ssvc", }, }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-11-14T04:55:17.007Z", orgId: "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0", shortName: "CISA-ADP", }, title: "CISA ADP Vulnrichment", }, { providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-08-15T12:04:53.153Z", orgId: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", shortName: "CVE", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240627.txt", }, { name: "3.3.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e86ac436f0bd54d4517745483e2315650fae7b2c", }, { name: "3.2.3 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/99fb785a5f85315b95288921a321a935ea29a51e", }, { name: "3.1.7 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4ada436a1946cbb24db5ab4ca082b69c1bc10f37", }, { name: "3.0.15 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/cf6f91f6121f4db167405db2f0de410a456f260c", }, { name: "1.1.1za git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/b78ec0824da857223486660177d3b1f255c65d87", }, { name: "1.0.2zk git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/9947251413065a05189a63c9b7a6c1d4e224c21c", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/06/27/1", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/06/28/4", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240712-0005/", }, { url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/08/15/1", }, ], title: "CVE Program Container", }, ], cna: { affected: [ { defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "OpenSSL", vendor: "OpenSSL", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.3.2", status: "affected", version: "3.3.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.2.3", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.7", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.0.15", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "1.1.1za", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "1.0.2zk", status: "affected", version: "1.0.2", versionType: "custom", }, ], }, ], credits: [ { lang: "en", type: "finder", value: "Joseph Birr-Pixton", }, { lang: "en", type: "analyst", value: "David Benjamin (Google)", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", value: "Matt Caswell", }, ], datePublic: "2024-06-26T23:00:00.000Z", descriptions: [ { lang: "en", supportingMedia: [ { base64: false, type: "text/html", value: "Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto with an<br>empty supported client protocols buffer may cause a crash or memory contents to<br>be sent to the peer.<br><br>Impact summary: A buffer overread can have a range of potential consequences<br>such as unexpected application beahviour or a crash. In particular this issue<br>could result in up to 255 bytes of arbitrary private data from memory being sent<br>to the peer leading to a loss of confidentiality. However, only applications<br>that directly call the SSL_select_next_proto function with a 0 length list of<br>supported client protocols are affected by this issue. This would normally never<br>be a valid scenario and is typically not under attacker control but may occur by<br>accident in the case of a configuration or programming error in the calling<br>application.<br><br>The OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto is typically used by TLS<br>applications that support ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation) or NPN<br>(Next Protocol Negotiation). NPN is older, was never standardised and<br>is deprecated in favour of ALPN. We believe that ALPN is significantly more<br>widely deployed than NPN. The SSL_select_next_proto function accepts a list of<br>protocols from the server and a list of protocols from the client and returns<br>the first protocol that appears in the server list that also appears in the<br>client list. In the case of no overlap between the two lists it returns the<br>first item in the client list. In either case it will signal whether an overlap<br>between the two lists was found. In the case where SSL_select_next_proto is<br>called with a zero length client list it fails to notice this condition and<br>returns the memory immediately following the client list pointer (and reports<br>that there was no overlap in the lists).<br><br>This function is typically called from a server side application callback for<br>ALPN or a client side application callback for NPN. In the case of ALPN the list<br>of protocols supplied by the client is guaranteed by libssl to never be zero in<br>length. The list of server protocols comes from the application and should never<br>normally be expected to be of zero length. In this case if the<br>SSL_select_next_proto function has been called as expected (with the list<br>supplied by the client passed in the client/client_len parameters), then the<br>application will not be vulnerable to this issue. If the application has<br>accidentally been configured with a zero length server list, and has<br>accidentally passed that zero length server list in the client/client_len<br>parameters, and has additionally failed to correctly handle a \"no overlap\"<br>response (which would normally result in a handshake failure in ALPN) then it<br>will be vulnerable to this problem.<br><br>In the case of NPN, the protocol permits the client to opportunistically select<br>a protocol when there is no overlap. OpenSSL returns the first client protocol<br>in the no overlap case in support of this. The list of client protocols comes<br>from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length.<br>However if the SSL_select_next_proto function is accidentally called with a<br>client_len of 0 then an invalid memory pointer will be returned instead. If the<br>application uses this output as the opportunistic protocol then the loss of<br>confidentiality will occur.<br><br>This issue has been assessed as Low severity because applications are most<br>likely to be vulnerable if they are using NPN instead of ALPN - but NPN is not<br>widely used. It also requires an application configuration or programming error.<br>Finally, this issue would not typically be under attacker control making active<br>exploitation unlikely.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.<br><br>\n\nDue to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing new releases of<br>OpenSSL at this time. The fix will be included in the next releases when they<br>become available.", }, ], value: "Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto with an\nempty supported client protocols buffer may cause a crash or memory contents to\nbe sent to the peer.\n\nImpact summary: A buffer overread can have a range of potential consequences\nsuch as unexpected application beahviour or a crash. In particular this issue\ncould result in up to 255 bytes of arbitrary private data from memory being sent\nto the peer leading to a loss of confidentiality. However, only applications\nthat directly call the SSL_select_next_proto function with a 0 length list of\nsupported client protocols are affected by this issue. This would normally never\nbe a valid scenario and is typically not under attacker control but may occur by\naccident in the case of a configuration or programming error in the calling\napplication.\n\nThe OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto is typically used by TLS\napplications that support ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation) or NPN\n(Next Protocol Negotiation). NPN is older, was never standardised and\nis deprecated in favour of ALPN. We believe that ALPN is significantly more\nwidely deployed than NPN. The SSL_select_next_proto function accepts a list of\nprotocols from the server and a list of protocols from the client and returns\nthe first protocol that appears in the server list that also appears in the\nclient list. In the case of no overlap between the two lists it returns the\nfirst item in the client list. In either case it will signal whether an overlap\nbetween the two lists was found. In the case where SSL_select_next_proto is\ncalled with a zero length client list it fails to notice this condition and\nreturns the memory immediately following the client list pointer (and reports\nthat there was no overlap in the lists).\n\nThis function is typically called from a server side application callback for\nALPN or a client side application callback for NPN. In the case of ALPN the list\nof protocols supplied by the client is guaranteed by libssl to never be zero in\nlength. The list of server protocols comes from the application and should never\nnormally be expected to be of zero length. In this case if the\nSSL_select_next_proto function has been called as expected (with the list\nsupplied by the client passed in the client/client_len parameters), then the\napplication will not be vulnerable to this issue. If the application has\naccidentally been configured with a zero length server list, and has\naccidentally passed that zero length server list in the client/client_len\nparameters, and has additionally failed to correctly handle a \"no overlap\"\nresponse (which would normally result in a handshake failure in ALPN) then it\nwill be vulnerable to this problem.\n\nIn the case of NPN, the protocol permits the client to opportunistically select\na protocol when there is no overlap. OpenSSL returns the first client protocol\nin the no overlap case in support of this. The list of client protocols comes\nfrom the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length.\nHowever if the SSL_select_next_proto function is accidentally called with a\nclient_len of 0 then an invalid memory pointer will be returned instead. If the\napplication uses this output as the opportunistic protocol then the loss of\nconfidentiality will occur.\n\nThis issue has been assessed as Low severity because applications are most\nlikely to be vulnerable if they are using NPN instead of ALPN - but NPN is not\nwidely used. It also requires an application configuration or programming error.\nFinally, this issue would not typically be under attacker control making active\nexploitation unlikely.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.\n\nDue to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing new releases of\nOpenSSL at this time. The fix will be included in the next releases when they\nbecome available.", }, ], metrics: [ { format: "other", other: { content: { text: "Low", }, type: "https://www.openssl.org/policies/secpolicy.html", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-200", description: "CWE-200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-07-12T14:06:04.752Z", orgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", shortName: "openssl", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240627.txt", }, { name: "3.3.2 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e86ac436f0bd54d4517745483e2315650fae7b2c", }, { name: "3.2.3 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/99fb785a5f85315b95288921a321a935ea29a51e", }, { name: "3.1.7 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4ada436a1946cbb24db5ab4ca082b69c1bc10f37", }, { name: "3.0.15 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/cf6f91f6121f4db167405db2f0de410a456f260c", }, { name: "1.1.1za git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/b78ec0824da857223486660177d3b1f255c65d87", }, { name: "1.0.2zk git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/9947251413065a05189a63c9b7a6c1d4e224c21c", }, { url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/06/27/1", }, { url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/06/28/4", }, { url: "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240712-0005/", }, ], source: { discovery: "UNKNOWN", }, title: "SSL_select_next_proto buffer overread", x_generator: { engine: "Vulnogram 0.2.0", }, }, }, cveMetadata: { assignerOrgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", assignerShortName: "openssl", cveId: "CVE-2024-5535", datePublished: "2024-06-27T10:30:53.118Z", dateReserved: "2024-05-30T15:34:36.813Z", dateUpdated: "2025-02-13T17:54:20.802Z", state: "PUBLISHED", }, dataType: "CVE_RECORD", dataVersion: "5.1", }
cve-2023-5678
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2023-11-06 15:47
Modified
2024-10-14 14:55
Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking
excessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow.
Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to
generate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications
that use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()
to check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays.
Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from
an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service.
While DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817),
DH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore
vulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters.
Likewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large
P, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q.
An application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and
supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be
vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.
DH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of
other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other
functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this
are DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate().
Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the
"-pubcheck" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.
The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.
References
Impacted products
{ containers: { adp: [ { providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-08-02T08:07:32.546Z", orgId: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", shortName: "CVE", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20231106.txt", }, { name: "1.0.2zj git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=34efaef6c103d636ab507a0cc34dca4d3aecc055", }, { name: "1.1.1x git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=710fee740904b6290fef0dd5536fbcedbc38ff0c", }, { name: "3.0.13 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=db925ae2e65d0d925adef429afc37f75bd1c2017", }, { name: "3.1.5 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=ddeb4b6c6d527e54ce9a99cba785c0f7776e54b6", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20231130-0010/", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/11/1", }, ], title: "CVE Program Container", }, ], cna: { affected: [ { defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "OpenSSL", vendor: "OpenSSL", versions: [ { lessThan: "1.0.2zj", status: "affected", version: "1.0.2", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "1.1.1x", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "3.0.13", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.5", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, ], }, ], credits: [ { lang: "en", type: "finder", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "David Benjamin (Google)", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "Richard Levitte", }, ], datePublic: "2023-11-06T00:00:00.000Z", descriptions: [ { lang: "en", supportingMedia: [ { base64: false, type: "text/html", value: "Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking<br>excessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow.<br><br>Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to<br>generate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications<br>that use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()<br>to check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays.<br>Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from<br>an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service.<br><br>While DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817),<br>DH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore<br>vulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters.<br><br>Likewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large<br>P, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q.<br><br>An application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and<br>supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be<br>vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.<br><br>DH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of<br>other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other<br>functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this<br>are DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate().<br><br>Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the<br>\"-pubcheck\" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application.<br><br>The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.<br><br>The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.<br><br>", }, ], value: "Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking\nexcessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow.\n\nImpact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to\ngenerate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications\nthat use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()\nto check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays.\nWhere the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from\nan untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service.\n\nWhile DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817),\nDH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore\nvulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters.\n\nLikewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large\nP, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q.\n\nAn application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and\nsupplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be\nvulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.\n\nDH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of\nother OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other\nfunctions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this\nare DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate().\n\nAlso vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the\n\"-pubcheck\" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application.\n\nThe OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.\n\nThe OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.", }, ], metrics: [ { format: "other", other: { content: { text: "LOW", }, type: "https://www.openssl.org/policies/secpolicy.html", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-606", description: "CWE-606 Unchecked Input for Loop Condition", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:55:53.778Z", orgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", shortName: "openssl", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20231106.txt", }, { name: "1.0.2zj git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=34efaef6c103d636ab507a0cc34dca4d3aecc055", }, { name: "1.1.1x git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=710fee740904b6290fef0dd5536fbcedbc38ff0c", }, { name: "3.0.13 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=db925ae2e65d0d925adef429afc37f75bd1c2017", }, { name: "3.1.5 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=ddeb4b6c6d527e54ce9a99cba785c0f7776e54b6", }, ], source: { discovery: "UNKNOWN", }, title: "Excessive time spent in DH check / generation with large Q parameter value", x_generator: { engine: "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev", }, }, }, cveMetadata: { assignerOrgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", assignerShortName: "openssl", cveId: "CVE-2023-5678", datePublished: "2023-11-06T15:47:30.795Z", dateReserved: "2023-10-20T09:38:43.518Z", dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:55:53.778Z", state: "PUBLISHED", }, dataType: "CVE_RECORD", dataVersion: "5.1", }
cve-2024-0727
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
Published
2024-01-26 08:57
Modified
2024-10-14 14:55
Severity ?
EPSS score ?
Summary
Issue summary: Processing a maliciously formatted PKCS12 file may lead OpenSSL
to crash leading to a potential Denial of Service attack
Impact summary: Applications loading files in the PKCS12 format from untrusted
sources might terminate abruptly.
A file in PKCS12 format can contain certificates and keys and may come from an
untrusted source. The PKCS12 specification allows certain fields to be NULL, but
OpenSSL does not correctly check for this case. This can lead to a NULL pointer
dereference that results in OpenSSL crashing. If an application processes PKCS12
files from an untrusted source using the OpenSSL APIs then that application will
be vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL APIs that are vulnerable to this are: PKCS12_parse(),
PKCS12_unpack_p7data(), PKCS12_unpack_p7encdata(), PKCS12_unpack_authsafes()
and PKCS12_newpass().
We have also fixed a similar issue in SMIME_write_PKCS7(). However since this
function is related to writing data we do not consider it security significant.
The FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
References
Impacted products
{ containers: { adp: [ { providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-08-01T18:18:17.369Z", orgId: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", shortName: "CVE", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240125.txt", }, { name: "3.2.1 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/775acfdbd0c6af9ac855f34969cdab0c0c90844a", }, { name: "3.1.5 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d135eeab8a5dbf72b3da5240bab9ddb7678dbd2c", }, { name: "3.0.13 git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/09df4395b5071217b76dc7d3d2e630eb8c5a79c2", }, { name: "1.1.1x git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/03b3941d60c4bce58fab69a0c22377ab439bc0e8", }, { name: "1.0.2zj git commit", tags: [ "patch", "x_transferred", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/aebaa5883e31122b404e450732dc833dc9dee539", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240208-0006/", }, { tags: [ "x_transferred", ], url: "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/11/1", }, ], title: "CVE Program Container", }, ], cna: { affected: [ { defaultStatus: "unaffected", product: "OpenSSL", vendor: "OpenSSL", versions: [ { lessThan: "3.2.1", status: "affected", version: "3.2.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.1.5", status: "affected", version: "3.1.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "3.0.13", status: "affected", version: "3.0.0", versionType: "semver", }, { lessThan: "1.1.1x", status: "affected", version: "1.1.1", versionType: "custom", }, { lessThan: "1.0.2zj", status: "affected", version: "1.0.2", versionType: "custom", }, ], }, ], credits: [ { lang: "en", type: "finder", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "Bahaa Naamneh (Crosspoint Labs)", }, { lang: "en", type: "remediation developer", user: "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", value: "Matt Caswell", }, ], datePublic: "2024-01-25T00:00:00.000Z", descriptions: [ { lang: "en", supportingMedia: [ { base64: false, type: "text/html", value: "Issue summary: Processing a maliciously formatted PKCS12 file may lead OpenSSL<br>to crash leading to a potential Denial of Service attack<br><br>Impact summary: Applications loading files in the PKCS12 format from untrusted<br>sources might terminate abruptly.<br><br>A file in PKCS12 format can contain certificates and keys and may come from an<br>untrusted source. The PKCS12 specification allows certain fields to be NULL, but<br>OpenSSL does not correctly check for this case. This can lead to a NULL pointer<br>dereference that results in OpenSSL crashing. If an application processes PKCS12<br>files from an untrusted source using the OpenSSL APIs then that application will<br>be vulnerable to this issue.<br><br>OpenSSL APIs that are vulnerable to this are: PKCS12_parse(),<br>PKCS12_unpack_p7data(), PKCS12_unpack_p7encdata(), PKCS12_unpack_authsafes()<br>and PKCS12_newpass().<br><br>We have also fixed a similar issue in SMIME_write_PKCS7(). However since this<br>function is related to writing data we do not consider it security significant.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.", }, ], value: "Issue summary: Processing a maliciously formatted PKCS12 file may lead OpenSSL\nto crash leading to a potential Denial of Service attack\n\nImpact summary: Applications loading files in the PKCS12 format from untrusted\nsources might terminate abruptly.\n\nA file in PKCS12 format can contain certificates and keys and may come from an\nuntrusted source. The PKCS12 specification allows certain fields to be NULL, but\nOpenSSL does not correctly check for this case. This can lead to a NULL pointer\ndereference that results in OpenSSL crashing. If an application processes PKCS12\nfiles from an untrusted source using the OpenSSL APIs then that application will\nbe vulnerable to this issue.\n\nOpenSSL APIs that are vulnerable to this are: PKCS12_parse(),\nPKCS12_unpack_p7data(), PKCS12_unpack_p7encdata(), PKCS12_unpack_authsafes()\nand PKCS12_newpass().\n\nWe have also fixed a similar issue in SMIME_write_PKCS7(). However since this\nfunction is related to writing data we do not consider it security significant.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.", }, ], metrics: [ { format: "other", other: { content: { text: "Low", }, type: "https://www.openssl.org/policies/secpolicy.html", }, }, ], problemTypes: [ { descriptions: [ { cweId: "CWE-476", description: "CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference", lang: "en", type: "CWE", }, ], }, ], providerMetadata: { dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:55:58.371Z", orgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", shortName: "openssl", }, references: [ { name: "OpenSSL Advisory", tags: [ "vendor-advisory", ], url: "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20240125.txt", }, { name: "3.2.1 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/775acfdbd0c6af9ac855f34969cdab0c0c90844a", }, { name: "3.1.5 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/d135eeab8a5dbf72b3da5240bab9ddb7678dbd2c", }, { name: "3.0.13 git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/09df4395b5071217b76dc7d3d2e630eb8c5a79c2", }, { name: "1.1.1x git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/03b3941d60c4bce58fab69a0c22377ab439bc0e8", }, { name: "1.0.2zj git commit", tags: [ "patch", ], url: "https://github.openssl.org/openssl/extended-releases/commit/aebaa5883e31122b404e450732dc833dc9dee539", }, ], source: { discovery: "UNKNOWN", }, title: "PKCS12 Decoding crashes", x_generator: { engine: "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev", }, }, }, cveMetadata: { assignerOrgId: "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5", assignerShortName: "openssl", cveId: "CVE-2024-0727", datePublished: "2024-01-26T08:57:19.579Z", dateReserved: "2024-01-19T11:01:11.010Z", dateUpdated: "2024-10-14T14:55:58.371Z", state: "PUBLISHED", }, dataType: "CVE_RECORD", dataVersion: "5.1", }
Log in or create an account to share your comment.
Security Advisory comment format.
This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.
UUIDv4 of the comment
UUIDv4 of the Vulnerability-Lookup instance
When the comment was created originally
When the comment was last updated
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
The identifier of the vulnerability (CVE ID, GHSA-ID, PYSEC ID, etc.).
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.