1 <!-- All security issues affecting OpenSSL since the release of:
8 <security updated="20170216">
9 <issue public="20170216">
10 <impact severity="High"/>
11 <cve name="2017-3733"/>
12 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
13 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
14 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
15 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
16 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
17 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e" date="20170216"/>
18 <problemtype>protocol error</problemtype>
19 <title>Encrypt-Then-Mac renegotiation crash</title>
21 During a renegotiation handshake if the Encrypt-Then-Mac extension is
22 negotiated where it was not in the original handshake (or vice-versa) then
23 this can cause OpenSSL to crash (dependent on ciphersuite). Both clients
24 and servers are affected.
26 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170216.txt"/>
27 <reported source="Joe Orton (Red Hat)" />
29 <issue public="20170126">
30 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
31 <cve name="2017-3731"/>
32 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
33 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
34 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
35 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
36 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
37 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
38 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
39 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
40 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
41 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
42 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
43 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
44 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
45 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
46 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
47 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d" date="20170126"/>
48 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k" date="20170126"/>
49 <problemtype>out-of-bounds read</problemtype>
50 <title>Truncated packet could crash via OOB read</title>
52 If an SSL/TLS server or client is running on a 32-bit host, and a specific
53 cipher is being used, then a truncated packet can cause that server or
54 client to perform an out-of-bounds read, usually resulting in a crash.
56 For OpenSSL 1.1.0, the crash can be triggered when using
57 CHACHA20/POLY1305; users should upgrade to 1.1.0d.
59 For Openssl 1.0.2, the crash can be triggered when using RC4-MD5; users
60 who have not disabled that algorithm should update to 1.0.2k
62 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170126.txt"/>
63 <reported source="Robert Święcki of Google" />
65 <issue public="20170126">
66 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
67 <cve name="2017-3730"/>
68 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
69 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
70 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
71 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
72 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d" date="20170126"/>
73 <problemtype>NULL pointer deference</problemtype>
74 <title>Bad (EC)DHE parameters cause a client crash</title>
76 If a malicious server supplies bad parameters for a DHE or ECDHE key
77 exchange then this can result in the client attempting to dereference a
78 NULL pointer leading to a client crash. This could be exploited in a
79 Denial of Service attack.
81 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170126.txt"/>
82 <reported source="Guido Vranken" />
84 <issue public="20170126">
85 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
86 <cve name="2017-3732"/>
87 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
88 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
89 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
90 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
91 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
92 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
93 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
94 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
95 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
96 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
97 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
98 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
99 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
100 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
101 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
102 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d" date="20170126"/>
103 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k" date="20170126"/>
104 <problemtype>carry-propagating bug</problemtype>
105 <title>BN_mod_exp may produce incorrect results on x86_64</title>
107 There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring
108 procedure. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks
109 against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to
110 perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered
111 just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary
112 to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The
113 amount of resources required for such an attack would be very significant
114 and likely only accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker
115 would additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the
116 target private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a
117 private key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can
118 occur by default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites. Note: This
119 issue is very similar to CVE-2015-3193 but must be treated as a separate
122 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170126.txt"/>
123 <reported source="OSS-Fuzz project" />
125 <issue public="20161110">
126 <impact severity="High"/>
127 <cve name="2016-7054"/>
128 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
129 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
130 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
131 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c" date="20161110"/>
132 <problemtype>protocol error</problemtype>
133 <title>ChaCha20/Poly1305 heap-buffer-overflow</title>
135 TLS connections using *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 ciphersuites are susceptible to
136 a DoS attack by corrupting larger payloads. This can result in an OpenSSL
137 crash. This issue is not considered to be exploitable beyond a DoS.
139 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20161110.txt"/>
140 <reported source="Robert Święcki (Google Security Team)" date="20160925"/>
142 <issue public="20161110">
143 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
144 <cve name="2016-7053"/>
145 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
146 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
147 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
148 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c" date="20161110"/>
149 <problemtype>NULL pointer deference</problemtype>
150 <title>CMS Null dereference</title>
152 Applications parsing invalid CMS structures can crash with a NULL pointer
153 dereference. This is caused by a bug in the handling of the ASN.1 CHOICE
154 type in OpenSSL 1.1.0 which can result in a NULL value being passed to the
155 structure callback if an attempt is made to free certain invalid
156 encodings. Only CHOICE structures using a callback which do not handle
157 NULL value are affected.
159 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20161110.txt"/>
160 <reported source="Tyler Nighswander (ForAllSecure)" date="20161012"/>
162 <issue public="20161110">
163 <impact severity="Low"/>
164 <cve name="2016-7055"/>
165 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
166 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
167 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
168 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
169 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
170 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
171 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
172 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
173 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
174 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
175 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
176 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
177 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
178 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
179 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c" date="20161110"/>
180 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k" date="20170126"/>
181 <problemtype>carry propagating bug</problemtype>
182 <title>Montgomery multiplication may produce incorrect results</title>
184 There is a carry propagating bug in the Broadwell-specific Montgomery
185 multiplication procedure that handles input lengths divisible by, but
186 longer than 256 bits. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA, DSA
187 and DH private keys are impossible. This is because the subroutine in
188 question is not used in operations with the private key itself and an
189 input of the attacker's direct choice. Otherwise the bug can manifest
190 itself as transient authentication and key negotiation failures or
191 reproducible erroneous outcome of public-key operations with specially
192 crafted input. Among EC algorithms only Brainpool P-512 curves are
193 affected and one presumably can attack ECDH key negotiation. Impact was
194 not analyzed in detail, because pre-requisites for attack are considered
195 unlikely. Namely multiple clients have to choose the curve in question and
196 the server has to share the private key among them, neither of which is
197 default behaviour. Even then only clients that chose the curve will be
198 affected.ctures using a callback which do not handle NULL value are
201 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20161110.txt"/>
202 <reported source="Publicly reported" />
204 <issue public="20160926">
205 <impact severity="Critical"/>
206 <cve name="2016-6309"/>
207 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
208 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b" date="20160926"/>
210 <problemtype>write to free</problemtype>
212 This issue only affects OpenSSL 1.1.0a, released on 22nd September 2016.
214 The patch applied to address CVE-2016-6307 resulted in an issue where if a
215 message larger than approx 16k is received then the underlying buffer to store
216 the incoming message is reallocated and moved. Unfortunately a dangling pointer
217 to the old location is left which results in an attempt to write to the
218 previously freed location. This is likely to result in a crash, however it
219 could potentially lead to execution of arbitrary code.
221 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160926.txt"/>
222 <reported source="Robert Święcki (Google Security Team)" date="20160923"/>
224 <issue public="20160926">
225 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
226 <cve name="2016-7052"/>
227 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
228 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j" date="20160926"/>
230 <problemtype>NULL pointer exception</problemtype>
232 This issue only affects OpenSSL 1.0.2i, released on 22nd September 2016.
234 A bug fix which included a CRL sanity check was added to OpenSSL 1.1.0
235 but was omitted from OpenSSL 1.0.2i. As a result any attempt to use
236 CRLs in OpenSSL 1.0.2i will crash with a null pointer exception.
238 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160926.txt"/>
239 <reported source="Bruce Stephens and Thomas Jakobi" date="20160922"/>
241 <issue public="20160922">
242 <impact severity="High"/>
243 <cve name="2016-6304"/>
244 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
245 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
246 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
247 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
248 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
249 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
250 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
251 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
252 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
253 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
254 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
255 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
256 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
257 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
258 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
259 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
260 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
261 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
262 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
263 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
264 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
265 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
266 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
267 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
268 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
269 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
270 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
271 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
272 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
273 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
274 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
275 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
276 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
277 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922"/>
279 <problemtype>memory leak</problemtype>
281 A malicious client can send an excessively large OCSP Status Request extension.
282 If that client continually requests renegotiation, sending a large OCSP Status
283 Request extension each time, then there will be unbounded memory growth on the
284 server. This will eventually lead to a Denial Of Service attack through memory
285 exhaustion. Servers with a default configuration are vulnerable even if they do
286 not support OCSP. Builds using the "no-ocsp" build time option are not affected.
288 Servers using OpenSSL versions prior to 1.0.1g are not vulnerable in a default
289 configuration, instead only if an application explicitly enables OCSP stapling
292 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
293 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160829"/>
295 <issue public="20160922">
296 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
297 <cve name="2016-6305"/>
298 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
299 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922"/>
302 OpenSSL 1.1.0 SSL/TLS will hang during a call to SSL_peek() if the peer sends an
303 empty record. This could be exploited by a malicious peer in a Denial Of Service
306 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
307 <reported source="Alex Gaynor" date="20160910"/>
309 <issue public="20160824">
310 <impact severity="Low"/>
311 <cve name="2016-6303"/>
312 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
313 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
314 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
315 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
316 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
317 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
318 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
319 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
320 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
321 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
322 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
323 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
324 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
325 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
326 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
327 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
328 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
329 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
330 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
331 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
332 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
333 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
334 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
335 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
336 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
337 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
338 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
339 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
340 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
341 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
342 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
343 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
346 An overflow can occur in MDC2_Update() either if called directly or
347 through the EVP_DigestUpdate() function using MDC2. If an attacker
348 is able to supply very large amounts of input data after a previous
349 call to EVP_EncryptUpdate() with a partial block then a length check
350 can overflow resulting in a heap corruption.
352 The amount of data needed is comparable to SIZE_MAX which is impractical
355 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
356 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160811"/>
358 <issue public="20160823">
359 <impact severity="Low"/>
360 <cve name="2016-6302"/>
361 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
362 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
363 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
364 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
365 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
366 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
367 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
368 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
369 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
370 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
371 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
372 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
373 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
374 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
375 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
376 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
377 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
378 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
379 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
380 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
381 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
382 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
383 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
384 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
385 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
386 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
387 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
388 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
389 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
390 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
391 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
392 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
395 If a server uses SHA512 for TLS session ticket HMAC it is vulnerable to a
396 DoS attack where a malformed ticket will result in an OOB read which will
399 The use of SHA512 in TLS session tickets is comparatively rare as it requires
400 a custom server callback and ticket lookup mechanism.
402 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
403 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160819"/>
405 <issue public="20160816">
406 <impact severity="Low"/>
407 <cve name="2016-2182"/>
408 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
409 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
410 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
411 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
412 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
413 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
414 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
415 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
416 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
417 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
418 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
419 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
420 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
421 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
422 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
423 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
424 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
425 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
426 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
427 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
428 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
429 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
430 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
431 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
432 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
433 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
434 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
435 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
436 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
437 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
438 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
439 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
442 The function BN_bn2dec() does not check the return value of BN_div_word().
443 This can cause an OOB write if an application uses this function with an
444 overly large BIGNUM. This could be a problem if an overly large certificate
445 or CRL is printed out from an untrusted source. TLS is not affected because
446 record limits will reject an oversized certificate before it is parsed.
448 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
449 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160802"/>
451 <issue public="20160722">
452 <impact severity="Low"/>
453 <cve name="2016-2180"/>
454 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
455 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
456 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
457 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
458 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
459 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
460 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
461 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
462 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
463 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
464 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
465 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
466 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
467 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
468 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
469 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
470 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
471 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
472 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
473 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
474 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
475 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
476 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
477 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
478 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
479 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
480 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
481 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
482 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
483 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
484 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
485 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
488 The function TS_OBJ_print_bio() misuses OBJ_obj2txt(): the return value is
489 the total length the OID text representation would use and not the amount
490 of data written. This will result in OOB reads when large OIDs are presented.
492 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
493 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160721"/>
495 <issue public="20160601">
496 <impact severity="Low"/>
497 <cve name="2016-2177"/>
498 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
499 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
500 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
501 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
502 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
503 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
504 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
505 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
506 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
507 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
508 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
509 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
510 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
511 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
512 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
513 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
514 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
515 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
516 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
517 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
518 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
519 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
520 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
521 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
522 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
523 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
524 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
525 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
526 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
527 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
528 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
529 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
532 Avoid some undefined pointer arithmetic
534 A common idiom in the codebase is to check limits in the following manner:
537 Where "p" points to some malloc'd data of SIZE bytes and
540 "len" here could be from some externally supplied data (e.g. from a TLS
543 The rules of C pointer arithmetic are such that "p + len" is only well
544 defined where len <= SIZE. Therefore the above idiom is actually
547 For example this could cause problems if some malloc implementation
548 provides an address for "p" such that "p + len" actually overflows for
549 values of len that are too big and therefore p + len < limit.
551 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
552 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160504"/>
554 <issue public="20160607">
555 <impact severity="Low"/>
556 <cve name="2016-2178"/>
557 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
558 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
559 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
560 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
561 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
562 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
563 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
564 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
565 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
566 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
567 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
568 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
569 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
570 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
571 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
572 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
573 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
574 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
575 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
576 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
577 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
578 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
579 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
580 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
581 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
582 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
583 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
584 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
585 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
586 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
587 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
588 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
591 Operations in the DSA signing algorithm should run in constant time in order to
592 avoid side channel attacks. A flaw in the OpenSSL DSA implementation means that
593 a non-constant time codepath is followed for certain operations. This has been
594 demonstrated through a cache-timing attack to be sufficient for an attacker to
595 recover the private DSA key.
597 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
598 <reported source="César Pereida (Aalto University), Billy Brumley (Tampere University of Technology), and Yuval Yarom (The University of Adelaide and NICTA)" date="20160523"/>
600 <issue public="20160822">
601 <impact severity="Low"/>
602 <cve name="2016-2179"/>
603 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
604 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
605 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
606 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
607 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
608 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
609 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
610 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
611 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
612 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
613 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
614 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
615 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
616 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
617 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
618 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
619 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
620 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
621 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
622 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
623 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
624 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
625 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
626 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
627 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
628 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
629 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
630 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
631 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
632 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
633 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
634 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
637 In a DTLS connection where handshake messages are delivered out-of-order those
638 messages that OpenSSL is not yet ready to process will be buffered for later
639 use. Under certain circumstances, a flaw in the logic means that those messages
640 do not get removed from the buffer even though the handshake has been completed.
641 An attacker could force up to approx. 15 messages to remain in the buffer when
642 they are no longer required. These messages will be cleared when the DTLS
643 connection is closed. The default maximum size for a message is 100k. Therefore
644 the attacker could force an additional 1500k to be consumed per connection. By
645 opening many simulataneous connections an attacker could cause a DoS attack
646 through memory exhaustion.
648 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
649 <reported source="Quan Luo" date="20160622"/>
651 <issue public="20160819">
652 <impact severity="Low"/>
653 <cve name="2016-2181"/>
654 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
655 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
656 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
657 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
658 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
659 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
660 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
661 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
662 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
663 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
664 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
665 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
666 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
667 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
668 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
669 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
670 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
671 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
672 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
673 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
674 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
675 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
676 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
677 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
678 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
679 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
680 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
681 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
682 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
683 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
684 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
685 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
688 A flaw in the DTLS replay attack protection mechanism means that records that
689 arrive for future epochs update the replay protection "window" before the MAC
690 for the record has been validated. This could be exploited by an attacker by
691 sending a record for the next epoch (which does not have to decrypt or have a
692 valid MAC), with a very large sequence number. This means that all subsequent
693 legitimate packets are dropped causing a denial of service for a specific
696 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
697 <reported source="OCAP audit team" date="20151121"/>
699 <issue public="20160921">
700 <impact severity="Low"/>
701 <cve name="2016-6306"/>
702 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
703 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
704 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
705 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
706 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
707 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
708 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
709 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
710 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
711 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
712 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
713 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
714 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
715 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
716 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
717 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
718 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
719 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
720 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
721 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
722 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
723 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
724 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
725 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
726 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
727 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
728 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
729 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
730 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
731 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
732 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
733 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
735 In OpenSSL 1.0.2 and earlier some missing message length checks can result in
736 OOB reads of up to 2 bytes beyond an allocated buffer. There is a theoretical
737 DoS risk but this has not been observed in practice on common platforms.
739 The messages affected are client certificate, client certificate request and
740 server certificate. As a result the attack can only be performed against
741 a client or a server which enables client authentication.
743 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
744 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160822"/>
746 <issue public="20160921">
747 <impact severity="Low"/>
748 <cve name="2016-6307"/>
749 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
750 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922"/>
753 A TLS message includes 3 bytes for its length in the header for the message.
754 This would allow for messages up to 16Mb in length. Messages of this length are
755 excessive and OpenSSL includes a check to ensure that a peer is sending
756 reasonably sized messages in order to avoid too much memory being consumed to
757 service a connection. A flaw in the logic of version 1.1.0 means that memory for
758 the message is allocated too early, prior to the excessive message length
759 check. Due to way memory is allocated in OpenSSL this could mean an attacker
760 could force up to 21Mb to be allocated to service a connection. This could lead
761 to a Denial of Service through memory exhaustion. However, the excessive message
762 length check still takes place, and this would cause the connection to
763 immediately fail. Assuming that the application calls SSL_free() on the failed
764 conneciton in a timely manner then the 21Mb of allocated memory will then be
765 immediately freed again. Therefore the excessive memory allocation will be
766 transitory in nature. This then means that there is only a security impact if:
768 1) The application does not call SSL_free() in a timely manner in the
769 event that the connection fails
771 2) The application is working in a constrained environment where there
772 is very little free memory
774 3) The attacker initiates multiple connection attempts such that there
775 are multiple connections in a state where memory has been allocated for
776 the connection; SSL_free() has not yet been called; and there is
777 insufficient memory to service the multiple requests.
779 Except in the instance of (1) above any Denial Of Service is likely to
780 be transitory because as soon as the connection fails the memory is
781 subsequently freed again in the SSL_free() call. However there is an
782 increased risk during this period of application crashes due to the lack
783 of memory - which would then mean a more serious Denial of Service.
785 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
786 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160818"/>
788 <issue public="20160921">
789 <impact severity="Low"/>
790 <cve name="2016-6308"/>
791 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
792 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922"/>
795 A DTLS message includes 3 bytes for its length in the header for the message.
796 This would allow for messages up to 16Mb in length. Messages of this length are
797 excessive and OpenSSL includes a check to ensure that a peer is sending
798 reasonably sized messages in order to avoid too much memory being consumed to
799 service a connection. A flaw in the logic of version 1.1.0 means that memory for
800 the message is allocated too early, prior to the excessive message length
801 check. Due to way memory is allocated in OpenSSL this could mean an attacker
802 could force up to 21Mb to be allocated to service a connection. This could lead
803 to a Denial of Service through memory exhaustion. However, the excessive message
804 length check still takes place, and this would cause the connection to
805 immediately fail. Assuming that the application calls SSL_free() on the failed
806 conneciton in a timely manner then the 21Mb of allocated memory will then be
807 immediately freed again. Therefore the excessive memory allocation will be
808 transitory in nature. This then means that there is only a security impact if:
810 1) The application does not call SSL_free() in a timely manner in the
811 event that the connection fails
813 2) The application is working in a constrained environment where there
814 is very little free memory
816 3) The attacker initiates multiple connection attempts such that there
817 are multiple connections in a state where memory has been allocated for
818 the connection; SSL_free() has not yet been called; and there is
819 insufficient memory to service the multiple requests.
821 Except in the instance of (1) above any Denial Of Service is likely to
822 be transitory because as soon as the connection fails the memory is
823 subsequently freed again in the SSL_free() call. However there is an
824 increased risk during this period of application crashes due to the lack
825 of memory - which would then mean a more serious Denial of Service.
827 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
828 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160818"/>
830 <issue public="20160503">
831 <impact severity="High"/>
832 <cve name="2016-2108"/>
833 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
834 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
835 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
836 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
837 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
838 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
839 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
840 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
841 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
842 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
843 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
844 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
845 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
846 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
847 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
848 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
849 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
850 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
851 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o" date="20160612"/>
852 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c" date="20160612"/>
855 This issue affected versions of OpenSSL prior to April 2015. The bug
856 causing the vulnerability was fixed on April 18th 2015, and released
857 as part of the June 11th 2015 security releases. The security impact
858 of the bug was not known at the time.
860 In previous versions of OpenSSL, ASN.1 encoding the value zero
861 represented as a negative integer can cause a buffer underflow
862 with an out-of-bounds write in i2c_ASN1_INTEGER. The ASN.1 parser does
863 not normally create "negative zeroes" when parsing ASN.1 input, and
864 therefore, an attacker cannot trigger this bug.
866 However, a second, independent bug revealed that the ASN.1 parser
867 (specifically, d2i_ASN1_TYPE) can misinterpret a large universal tag
868 as a negative zero value. Large universal tags are not present in any
869 common ASN.1 structures (such as X509) but are accepted as part of ANY
872 Therefore, if an application deserializes untrusted ASN.1 structures
873 containing an ANY field, and later reserializes them, an attacker may
874 be able to trigger an out-of-bounds write. This has been shown to
875 cause memory corruption that is potentially exploitable with some
876 malloc implementations.
878 Applications that parse and re-encode X509 certificates are known to
879 be vulnerable. Applications that verify RSA signatures on X509
880 certificates may also be vulnerable; however, only certificates with
881 valid signatures trigger ASN.1 re-encoding and hence the
882 bug. Specifically, since OpenSSL's default TLS X509 chain verification
883 code verifies the certificate chain from root to leaf, TLS handshakes
884 could only be targeted with valid certificates issued by trusted
885 Certification Authorities.
887 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
888 <reported source="Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Red Hat), Hanno Böck, David Benjamin (Google)" date="20160331"/>
890 <issue public="20160503">
891 <impact severity="High"/>
892 <cve name="2016-2107"/>
893 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
894 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
895 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
896 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
897 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
898 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
899 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
900 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
901 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
902 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
903 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
904 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
905 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
906 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
907 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
908 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
909 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
910 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
911 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
912 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
913 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
914 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
915 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
916 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
917 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
918 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
919 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
920 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
921 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
922 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
925 A MITM attacker can use a padding oracle attack to decrypt traffic
926 when the connection uses an AES CBC cipher and the server support
929 This issue was introduced as part of the fix for Lucky 13 padding
930 attack (CVE-2013-0169). The padding check was rewritten to be in
931 constant time by making sure that always the same bytes are read and
932 compared against either the MAC or padding bytes. But it no longer
933 checked that there was enough data to have both the MAC and padding
936 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
937 <reported source="Juraj Somorovsky" date="20160413"/>
939 <issue public="20160503">
940 <impact severity="Low"/>
941 <cve name="2016-2105"/>
942 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
943 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
944 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
945 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
946 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
947 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
948 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
949 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
950 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
951 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
952 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
953 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
954 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
955 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
956 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
957 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
958 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
959 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
960 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
961 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
962 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
963 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
964 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
965 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
966 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
967 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
968 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
969 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
970 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
971 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
974 An overflow can occur in the EVP_EncodeUpdate() function which is used for
975 Base64 encoding of binary data. If an attacker is able to supply very
976 large amounts of input data then a length check can overflow resulting in
979 Internally to OpenSSL the EVP_EncodeUpdate() function is primarly used by the
980 PEM_write_bio* family of functions. These are mainly used within the OpenSSL
981 command line applications. These internal uses are not considered vulnerable
982 because all calls are bounded with length checks so no overflow is possible.
983 User applications that call these APIs directly with large amounts of untrusted
984 data may be vulnerable. (Note: Initial analysis suggested that the
985 PEM_write_bio* were vulnerable, and this is reflected in the patch commit
986 message. This is no longer believed to be the case).
988 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
989 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160303"/>
991 <issue public="20160503">
992 <impact severity="Low"/>
993 <cve name="2016-2106"/>
994 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
995 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
996 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
997 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
998 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
999 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1000 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1001 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1002 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1003 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1004 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1005 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1006 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1007 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1008 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1009 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1010 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1011 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1012 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1013 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1014 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1015 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1016 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1017 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1018 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1019 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1020 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1021 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1022 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1023 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1026 An overflow can occur in the EVP_EncryptUpdate() function. If an attacker
1027 is able to supply very large amounts of input data after a previous call
1028 to EVP_EncryptUpdate() with a partial block then a length check can
1029 overflow resulting in a heap corruption. Following an analysis of all
1030 OpenSSL internal usage of the EVP_EncryptUpdate() function all usage is
1031 one of two forms. The first form is where the EVP_EncryptUpdate() call is
1032 known to be the first called function after an EVP_EncryptInit(), and
1033 therefore that specific call must be safe. The second form is where the
1034 length passed to EVP_EncryptUpdate() can be seen from the code to be some
1035 small value and therefore there is no possibility of an overflow. Since
1036 all instances are one of these two forms, it is believed that there can be
1037 no overflows in internal code due to this problem. It should be noted that
1038 EVP_DecryptUpdate() can call EVP_EncryptUpdate() in certain code paths.
1039 Also EVP_CipherUpdate() is a synonym for EVP_EncryptUpdate(). All
1040 instances of these calls have also been analysed too and it is believed
1041 there are no instances in internal usage where an overflow could occur.
1043 This could still represent a security issue for end user code that calls
1044 this function directly.
1046 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1047 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160303"/>
1049 <issue public="20160503">
1050 <impact severity="Low"/>
1051 <cve name="2016-2109"/>
1052 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1053 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1054 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1055 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1056 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1057 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1058 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1059 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1060 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1061 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1062 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1063 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1064 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1065 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1066 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1067 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1068 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1069 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1070 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1071 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1072 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1073 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1074 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1075 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1076 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1077 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1078 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1079 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1080 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1081 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1084 When ASN.1 data is read from a BIO using functions such as d2i_CMS_bio()
1085 a short invalid encoding can casuse allocation of large amounts of memory
1086 potentially consuming excessive resources or exhausting memory.
1088 Any application parsing untrusted data through d2i BIO functions is
1089 affected. The memory based functions such as d2i_X509() are *not*
1090 affected. Since the memory based functions are used by the TLS library,
1091 TLS applications are not affected.
1093 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1094 <reported source="Brian Carpenter" date="20160404"/>
1096 <issue public="20160503">
1097 <impact severity="Low"/>
1098 <cve name="2016-2176"/>
1099 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1100 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1101 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1102 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1103 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1104 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1105 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1106 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1107 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1108 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1109 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1110 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1111 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1112 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1113 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1114 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1115 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1116 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1117 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1118 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1119 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1120 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1121 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1122 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1123 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1124 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1125 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1126 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1127 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1128 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1131 ASN1 Strings that are over 1024 bytes can cause an overread in
1132 applications using the X509_NAME_oneline() function on EBCDIC systems.
1133 This could result in arbitrary stack data being returned in the buffer.
1135 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1136 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160305"/>
1138 <issue public="20160301">
1139 <impact severity="High"/>
1140 <cve name="2016-0800"/>
1141 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1142 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1143 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1144 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1145 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1146 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1147 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1148 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1149 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1150 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1151 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1152 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1153 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1154 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1155 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1156 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1157 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1158 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1159 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1160 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1161 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1162 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1163 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1164 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1165 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1166 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1167 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1168 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1171 A cross-protocol attack was discovered that could lead to decryption of TLS
1172 sessions by using a server supporting SSLv2 and EXPORT cipher suites as a
1173 Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle. Note that traffic between clients and
1174 non-vulnerable servers can be decrypted provided another server supporting
1175 SSLv2 and EXPORT ciphers (even with a different protocol such as SMTP, IMAP or
1176 POP) shares the RSA keys of the non-vulnerable server. This vulnerability is
1177 known as DROWN (CVE-2016-0800).
1179 Recovering one session key requires the attacker to perform approximately 2^50
1180 computation, as well as thousands of connections to the affected server. A more
1181 efficient variant of the DROWN attack exists against unpatched OpenSSL servers
1182 using versions that predate 1.0.2a, 1.0.1m, 1.0.0r and 0.9.8zf released on
1183 19/Mar/2015 (see CVE-2016-0703 below).
1185 Users can avoid this issue by disabling the SSLv2 protocol in all their SSL/TLS
1186 servers, if they've not done so already. Disabling all SSLv2 ciphers is also
1187 sufficient, provided the patches for CVE-2015-3197 (fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.1r and
1188 1.0.2f) have been deployed. Servers that have not disabled the SSLv2 protocol,
1189 and are not patched for CVE-2015-3197 are vulnerable to DROWN even if all SSLv2
1190 ciphers are nominally disabled, because malicious clients can force the use of
1191 SSLv2 with EXPORT ciphers.
1193 OpenSSL 1.0.2g and 1.0.1s deploy the following mitigation against DROWN:
1195 SSLv2 is now by default disabled at build-time. Builds that are not configured
1196 with "enable-ssl2" will not support SSLv2. Even if "enable-ssl2" is used,
1197 users who want to negotiate SSLv2 via the version-flexible SSLv23_method() will
1198 need to explicitly call either of:
1200 SSL_CTX_clear_options(ctx, SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2);
1202 SSL_clear_options(ssl, SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2);
1204 as appropriate. Even if either of those is used, or the application explicitly
1205 uses the version-specific SSLv2_method() or its client or server variants,
1206 SSLv2 ciphers vulnerable to exhaustive search key recovery have been removed.
1207 Specifically, the SSLv2 40-bit EXPORT ciphers, and SSLv2 56-bit DES are no
1210 In addition, weak ciphers in SSLv3 and up are now disabled in default builds of
1211 OpenSSL. Builds that are not configured with "enable-weak-ssl-ciphers" will
1212 not provide any "EXPORT" or "LOW" strength ciphers.
1214 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1215 <reported source="Nimrod Aviram and Sebastian Schinzel" date="20151229"/>
1217 <issue public="20160301">
1218 <impact severity="Low"/>
1219 <cve name="2016-0705"/>
1220 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1221 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1222 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1223 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1224 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1225 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1226 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1227 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1228 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1229 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1230 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1231 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1232 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1233 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1234 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1235 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1236 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1237 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1238 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1239 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1240 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1241 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1242 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1243 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1244 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1245 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1246 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1247 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1250 A double free bug was discovered when OpenSSL parses malformed DSA private keys
1251 and could lead to a DoS attack or memory corruption for applications that
1252 receive DSA private keys from untrusted sources. This scenario is considered
1255 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1256 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google/BoringSSL)" date="20160207"/>
1258 <issue public="20160301">
1259 <impact severity="Low"/>
1260 <cve name="2016-0798"/>
1261 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1262 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1263 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1264 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1265 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1266 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1267 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1268 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1269 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1270 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1271 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1272 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1273 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1274 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1275 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1276 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1277 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1278 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1279 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1280 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1281 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1282 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1283 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1284 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1285 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1286 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1287 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1288 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1291 The SRP user database lookup method SRP_VBASE_get_by_user had
1292 confusing memory management semantics; the returned pointer was sometimes newly
1293 allocated, and sometimes owned by the callee. The calling code has no way of
1294 distinguishing these two cases.
1296 Specifically, SRP servers that configure a secret seed to hide valid
1297 login information are vulnerable to a memory leak: an attacker
1298 connecting with an invalid username can cause a memory leak of around
1299 300 bytes per connection. Servers that do not configure SRP, or
1300 configure SRP but do not configure a seed are not vulnerable.
1302 In Apache, the seed directive is known as SSLSRPUnknownUserSeed.
1304 To mitigate the memory leak, the seed handling in
1305 SRP_VBASE_get_by_user is now disabled even if the user has configured
1306 a seed. Applications are advised to migrate to
1307 SRP_VBASE_get1_by_user. However, note that OpenSSL makes no strong
1308 guarantees about the indistinguishability of valid and invalid
1309 logins. In particular, computations are currently not carried out in
1312 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1313 <reported source="Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL)" date="20160223"/>
1315 <issue public="20160301">
1316 <impact severity="Low"/>
1317 <cve name="2016-0797"/>
1318 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1319 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1320 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1321 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1322 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1323 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1324 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1325 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1326 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1327 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1328 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1329 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1330 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1331 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1332 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1333 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1334 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1335 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1336 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1337 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1338 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1339 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1340 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1341 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1342 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1343 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1344 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1345 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1348 In the BN_hex2bn function the number of hex digits is calculated using an int
1349 value |i|. Later |bn_expand| is called with a value of |i * 4|. For large values
1350 of |i| this can result in |bn_expand| not allocating any memory because |i * 4|
1351 is negative. This can leave the internal BIGNUM data field as NULL leading to a
1352 subsequent NULL ptr deref. For very large values of |i|, the calculation |i * 4|
1353 could be a positive value smaller than |i|. In this case memory is allocated to
1354 the internal BIGNUM data field, but it is insufficiently sized leading to heap
1355 corruption. A similar issue exists in BN_dec2bn. This could have security
1356 consequences if BN_hex2bn/BN_dec2bn is ever called by user applications with
1357 very large untrusted hex/dec data. This is anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
1359 All OpenSSL internal usage of these functions use data that is not expected to
1360 be untrusted, e.g. config file data or application command line arguments. If
1361 user developed applications generate config file data based on untrusted data
1362 then it is possible that this could also lead to security consequences. This is
1363 also anticipated to be rare.
1365 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1366 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160219"/>
1368 <issue public="20160301">
1369 <impact severity="Low"/>
1370 <cve name="2016-0799"/>
1371 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1372 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1373 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1374 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1375 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1376 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1377 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1378 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1379 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1380 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1381 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1382 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1383 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1384 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1385 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1386 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1387 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1388 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1389 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1390 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1391 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1392 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1393 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1394 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1395 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1396 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1397 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1398 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1401 The internal |fmtstr| function used in processing a "%s" format string in the
1402 BIO_*printf functions could overflow while calculating the length of a string
1403 and cause an OOB read when printing very long strings.
1405 Additionally the internal |doapr_outch| function can attempt to write to an OOB
1406 memory location (at an offset from the NULL pointer) in the event of a memory
1407 allocation failure. In 1.0.2 and below this could be caused where the size of a
1408 buffer to be allocated is greater than INT_MAX. E.g. this could be in processing
1409 a very long "%s" format string. Memory leaks can also occur.
1411 The first issue may mask the second issue dependent on compiler behaviour.
1412 These problems could enable attacks where large amounts of untrusted data is
1413 passed to the BIO_*printf functions. If applications use these functions in this
1414 way then they could be vulnerable. OpenSSL itself uses these functions when
1415 printing out human-readable dumps of ASN.1 data. Therefore applications that
1416 print this data could be vulnerable if the data is from untrusted sources.
1417 OpenSSL command line applications could also be vulnerable where they print out
1418 ASN.1 data, or if untrusted data is passed as command line arguments.
1420 Libssl is not considered directly vulnerable. Additionally certificates etc
1421 received via remote connections via libssl are also unlikely to be able to
1422 trigger these issues because of message size limits enforced within libssl.
1424 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1425 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160223"/>
1427 <issue public="20160301">
1428 <impact severity="Low"/>
1429 <cve name="2016-0702"/>
1430 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1431 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1432 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1433 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1434 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1435 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1436 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1437 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1438 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1439 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1440 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1441 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1442 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1443 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1444 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1445 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1446 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1447 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1448 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1449 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1450 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1451 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1452 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1453 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1454 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1455 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1456 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1457 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1460 A side-channel attack was found which makes use of cache-bank conflicts on the
1461 Intel Sandy-Bridge microarchitecture which could lead to the recovery of RSA
1462 keys. The ability to exploit this issue is limited as it relies on an attacker
1463 who has control of code in a thread running on the same hyper-threaded core as
1464 the victim thread which is performing decryptions.
1466 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1467 <reported source="Yuval Yarom, The University of Adelaide and NICTA, Daniel Genkin, Technion and Tel Aviv University, and Nadia Heninger, University of Pennsylvania" date="20160108"/>
1469 <issue public="20160301">
1470 <impact severity="High"/>
1471 <cve name="2016-0703"/>
1473 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
1474 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
1475 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
1476 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
1477 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
1478 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
1479 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
1480 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
1481 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
1482 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
1483 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
1484 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
1485 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
1486 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
1487 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
1488 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
1489 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
1490 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
1491 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
1492 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
1493 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
1494 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
1495 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
1496 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
1497 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
1498 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
1499 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
1500 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
1501 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
1502 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
1503 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
1504 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
1505 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
1506 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
1507 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
1508 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
1509 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
1510 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
1511 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
1512 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
1513 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
1514 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
1515 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
1516 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
1517 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
1518 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
1519 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
1520 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
1521 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1522 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1523 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1524 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1525 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1526 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1527 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1528 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1529 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1530 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1531 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1532 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1533 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1534 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1535 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
1536 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
1537 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
1538 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
1541 This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
1542 time the code was refactored to address vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
1544 s2_srvr.c did not enforce that clear-key-length is 0 for non-export ciphers. If
1545 clear-key bytes are present for these ciphers, they *displace* encrypted-key
1546 bytes. This leads to an efficient divide-and-conquer key recovery attack: if an
1547 eavesdropper has intercepted an SSLv2 handshake, they can use the server as an
1548 oracle to determine the SSLv2 master-key, using only 16 connections to the
1549 server and negligible computation.
1551 More importantly, this leads to a more efficient version of DROWN that is
1552 effective against non-export ciphersuites, and requires no significant
1555 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1556 <reported source="David Adrian and J.Alex Halderman (University of Michigan)" date="20160210"/>
1558 <issue public="20160301">
1559 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
1560 <cve name="2016-0704"/>
1562 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
1563 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
1564 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
1565 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
1566 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
1567 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
1568 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
1569 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
1570 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
1571 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
1572 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
1573 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
1574 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
1575 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
1576 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
1577 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
1578 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
1579 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
1580 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
1581 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
1582 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
1583 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
1584 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
1585 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
1586 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
1587 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
1588 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
1589 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
1590 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
1591 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
1592 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
1593 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
1594 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
1595 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
1596 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
1597 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
1598 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
1599 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
1600 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
1601 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
1602 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
1603 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
1604 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
1605 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
1606 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
1607 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
1608 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
1609 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
1610 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1611 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1612 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1613 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1614 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1615 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1616 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1617 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1618 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1619 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1620 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1621 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1622 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1623 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1624 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
1625 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
1626 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
1627 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
1630 This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
1631 time the code was refactored to address the vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
1633 s2_srvr.c overwrite the wrong bytes in the master-key when applying
1634 Bleichenbacher protection for export cipher suites. This provides a
1635 Bleichenbacher oracle, and could potentially allow more efficient variants of
1638 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1639 <reported source="David Adrian and J.Alex Halderman (University of Michigan)" date="20160210"/>
1641 <issue public="20160128">
1642 <impact severity="High"/>
1643 <cve name="2016-0701"/>
1644 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1645 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1646 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1647 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1648 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1649 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1650 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f" date="2016-0701"/>
1653 Historically OpenSSL usually only ever generated DH parameters based on "safe"
1654 primes. More recently (in version 1.0.2) support was provided for generating
1655 X9.42 style parameter files such as those required for RFC 5114 support. The
1656 primes used in such files may not be "safe". Where an application is using DH
1657 configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" then an attacker
1658 could use this fact to find a peer's private DH exponent. This attack requires
1659 that the attacker complete multiple handshakes in which the peer uses the same
1660 private DH exponent. For example this could be used to discover a TLS server's
1661 private DH exponent if it's reusing the private DH exponent or it's using a
1662 static DH ciphersuite.
1664 OpenSSL provides the option SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE for ephemeral DH (DHE) in TLS.
1665 It is not on by default. If the option is not set then the server reuses the
1666 same private DH exponent for the life of the server process and would be
1667 vulnerable to this attack. It is believed that many popular applications do set
1668 this option and would therefore not be at risk.
1670 OpenSSL before 1.0.2f will reuse the key if:
1671 - SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh()/SSL_set_tmp_dh() is used and SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not
1673 - SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh_callback()/SSL_set_tmp_dh_callback() is used, and both the
1674 parameters and the key are set and SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not used. This is
1675 an undocumted feature and parameter files don't contain the key.
1676 - Static DH ciphersuites are used. The key is part of the certificate and
1677 so it will always reuse it. This is only supported in 1.0.2.
1679 It will not reuse the key for DHE ciphers suites if:
1680 - SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is set
1681 - SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh_callback()/SSL_set_tmp_dh_callback() is used and the
1682 callback does not provide the key, only the parameters. The callback is
1683 almost always used like this.
1685 Non-safe primes are generated by OpenSSL when using:
1686 - genpkey with the dh_rfc5114 option. This will write an X9.42 style file
1687 including the prime-order subgroup size "q". This is supported since the 1.0.2
1688 version. Older versions can't read files generated in this way.
1689 - dhparam with the -dsaparam option. This has always been documented as
1690 requiring the single use.
1692 The fix for this issue adds an additional check where a "q" parameter is
1693 available (as is the case in X9.42 based parameters). This detects the
1694 only known attack, and is the only possible defense for static DH ciphersuites.
1695 This could have some performance impact.
1697 Additionally the SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option has been switched on by default
1698 and cannot be disabled. This could have some performance impact.
1700 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160128.txt"/>
1701 <reported source="Antonio Sanso (Adobe)" date="20160112"/>
1703 <issue public="20160128">
1704 <impact severity="Low"/>
1705 <cve name="2015-3197"/>
1706 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1707 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1708 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1709 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1710 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1711 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1712 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1713 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1714 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1715 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1716 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1717 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1718 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1719 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1720 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1721 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1722 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1723 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1724 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1725 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1726 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1727 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1728 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1729 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1730 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r" date="20160128"/>
1731 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f" date="20160128"/>
1734 A malicious client can negotiate SSLv2 ciphers that have been disabled on the
1735 server and complete SSLv2 handshakes even if all SSLv2 ciphers have been
1736 disabled, provided that the SSLv2 protocol was not also disabled via
1739 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160128.txt"/>
1740 <reported source="Nimrod Aviram and Sebastian Schinzel" date="20151226"/>
1742 <issue public="20150811">
1743 <impact severity="Low"/>
1744 <cve name="2015-1794"/>
1745 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1746 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1747 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1748 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1749 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1750 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
1753 If a client receives a ServerKeyExchange for an anonymous DH ciphersuite with
1754 the value of p set to 0 then a seg fault can occur leading to a possible denial
1757 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
1758 <reported source="Guy Leaver (Cisco)" date="20150803"/>
1760 <issue public="20151203">
1761 <cve name="2015-3193"/>
1762 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
1763 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1764 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1765 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1766 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1767 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1768 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
1771 There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure. No
1772 EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA
1773 as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not
1774 believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very
1775 difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information
1776 about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources
1777 required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only
1778 accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker would
1779 additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target
1780 private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private
1781 key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can occur by
1782 default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites.
1784 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
1785 <reported source="Hanno Böck" date="20150813"/>
1787 <issue public="20151203">
1788 <cve name="2015-3194"/>
1789 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
1790 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1791 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1792 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1793 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1794 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1795 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1796 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1797 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1798 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1799 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1800 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1801 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1802 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1803 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1804 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1805 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1806 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1807 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1808 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1809 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1810 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1811 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1812 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
1813 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q" date="20151203"/>
1816 The signature verification routines will crash with a NULL pointer dereference
1817 if presented with an ASN.1 signature using the RSA PSS algorithm and absent
1818 mask generation function parameter. Since these routines are used to verify
1819 certificate signature algorithms this can be used to crash any certificate
1820 verification operation and exploited in a DoS attack. Any application which
1821 performs certificate verification is vulnerable including OpenSSL clients and
1822 servers which enable client authentication.
1824 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
1825 <reported source="Loïc Jonas Etienne (Qnective AG)" date="20150827"/>
1827 <issue public="20151203">
1828 <cve name="2015-3195"/>
1829 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
1830 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
1831 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
1832 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
1833 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
1834 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
1835 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
1836 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
1837 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
1838 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
1839 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
1840 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
1841 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
1842 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
1843 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
1844 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
1845 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
1846 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
1847 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
1848 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
1849 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
1850 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
1851 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
1852 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
1853 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
1854 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
1855 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
1856 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
1857 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
1858 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
1859 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
1860 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
1861 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
1862 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg"/>
1863 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
1864 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
1865 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
1866 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
1867 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
1868 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
1869 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
1870 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
1871 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0h"/>
1872 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
1873 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
1874 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
1875 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
1876 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
1877 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
1878 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
1879 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
1880 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
1881 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
1882 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s"/>
1883 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1884 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1885 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1886 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1887 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1888 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1889 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1890 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1891 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1892 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1893 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1894 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1895 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1896 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1897 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1898 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1899 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1900 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1901 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1902 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1903 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1904 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1905 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
1906 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q" date="20151203"/>
1907 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0t" date="20151203"/>
1908 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zh" date="20151203"/>
1911 When presented with a malformed X509_ATTRIBUTE structure OpenSSL will leak
1912 memory. This structure is used by the PKCS#7 and CMS routines so any
1913 application which reads PKCS#7 or CMS data from untrusted sources is affected.
1914 SSL/TLS is not affected.
1916 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
1917 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google/BoringSSL) using libFuzzer" date="20151109"/>
1919 <issue public="20151203">
1920 <cve name="2015-3196"/>
1921 <impact severity="Low"/>
1922 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
1923 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
1924 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
1925 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
1926 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
1927 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
1928 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
1929 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
1930 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0h"/>
1931 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
1932 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
1933 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
1934 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
1935 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
1936 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
1937 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
1938 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
1939 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
1940 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
1941 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s"/>
1942 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1943 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1944 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1945 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1946 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1947 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1948 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1949 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1950 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1951 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1952 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1953 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1954 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1955 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1956 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1957 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1958 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1959 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1960 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1961 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1962 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d" date="20150709"/>
1963 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p" date="20150709"/>
1964 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0t" date="20151203"/>
1967 If PSK identity hints are received by a multi-threaded client then
1968 the values are wrongly updated in the parent SSL_CTX structure. This can
1969 result in a race condition potentially leading to a double free of the
1972 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
1973 <reported source="Stephen Henson (OpenSSL)"/>
1976 <issue public="20150709">
1977 <cve name="2015-1793"/>
1978 <impact severity="High"/>
1979 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1980 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1981 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1982 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1983 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d" date="20150709"/>
1984 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p" date="20150709"/>
1987 An error in the implementation of the alternative certificate
1988 chain logic could allow an attacker to cause certain checks on
1989 untrusted certificates to be bypassed, such as the CA flag,
1990 enabling them to use a valid leaf certificate to act as a CA and
1991 "issue" an invalid certificate.
1993 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150709.txt"/>
1994 <reported source="Adam Langley and David Benjamin (Google/BoringSSL)" date="20150624"/>
1996 <issue public="20150611">
1997 <cve name="2015-1788"/>
1998 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
1999 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2000 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2001 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2002 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2003 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2004 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2005 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2006 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2007 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2008 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2009 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2010 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2011 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2012 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2013 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2014 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2015 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2016 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2017 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2018 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2019 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2020 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2021 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2022 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2023 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2024 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2025 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2026 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2027 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2028 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2029 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2030 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2031 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2032 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2033 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2034 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2035 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2036 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2037 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2038 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2039 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2040 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e" date="20110906"/>
2041 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
2044 When processing an ECParameters structure OpenSSL enters an infinite loop if
2045 the curve specified is over a specially malformed binary polynomial field.
2047 This can be used to perform denial of service against any
2048 system which processes public keys, certificate requests or
2049 certificates. This includes TLS clients and TLS servers with
2050 client authentication enabled.
2052 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2053 <reported source="Joseph Birr-Pixton" date="20150406"/>
2056 <issue public="20150611">
2057 <cve name="2015-1789"/>
2058 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2059 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2060 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2061 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2062 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2063 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2064 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2065 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2066 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2067 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2068 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2069 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2070 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2071 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2072 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2073 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2074 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2075 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2076 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2077 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2078 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2079 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2080 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2081 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2082 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2083 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2084 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2085 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2086 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2087 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2088 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2089 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2090 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2091 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2092 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2093 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2094 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2095 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2096 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2097 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2098 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2099 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2100 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2101 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2102 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2103 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2104 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2105 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2106 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2107 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2108 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2109 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2110 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2111 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2112 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2113 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2114 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2115 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2116 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2117 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2118 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2119 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2120 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2121 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2122 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2123 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2124 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2125 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2126 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2127 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2128 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2131 X509_cmp_time does not properly check the length of the ASN1_TIME
2132 string and can read a few bytes out of bounds. In addition,
2133 X509_cmp_time accepts an arbitrary number of fractional seconds in the
2136 An attacker can use this to craft malformed certificates and CRLs of
2137 various sizes and potentially cause a segmentation fault, resulting in
2138 a DoS on applications that verify certificates or CRLs. TLS clients
2139 that verify CRLs are affected. TLS clients and servers with client
2140 authentication enabled may be affected if they use custom verification
2143 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2144 <reported source="Robert Święcki (Google Security Team)" date="20150408"/>
2145 <reported source="Hanno Böck" date="20150411"/>
2148 <issue public="20150611">
2149 <cve name="2015-1790"/>
2150 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2151 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2152 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2153 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2154 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2155 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2156 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2157 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2158 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2159 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2160 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2161 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2162 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2163 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2164 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2165 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2166 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2167 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2168 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2169 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2170 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2171 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2172 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2173 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2174 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2175 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2176 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2177 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2178 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2179 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2180 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2181 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2182 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2183 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2184 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2185 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2186 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2187 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2188 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2189 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2190 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2191 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2192 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2193 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2194 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2195 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2196 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2197 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2198 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2199 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2200 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2201 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2202 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2203 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2204 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2205 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2206 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2207 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2208 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2209 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2210 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2211 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2212 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2213 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2214 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2215 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2216 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2217 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2218 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2219 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2220 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2223 The PKCS#7 parsing code does not handle missing inner EncryptedContent
2224 correctly. An attacker can craft malformed ASN.1-encoded PKCS#7 blobs
2225 with missing content and trigger a NULL pointer dereference on parsing.
2227 Applications that decrypt PKCS#7 data or otherwise parse PKCS#7
2228 structures from untrusted sources are affected. OpenSSL clients and
2229 servers are not affected.
2231 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2232 <reported source="Michal Zalewski (Google)" date="20150418"/>
2235 <issue public="20150611">
2236 <cve name="2015-1792"/>
2237 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2238 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2239 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2240 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2241 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2242 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2243 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2244 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2245 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2246 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2247 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2248 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2249 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2250 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2251 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2252 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2253 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2254 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2255 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2256 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2257 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2258 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2259 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2260 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2261 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2262 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2263 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2264 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2265 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2266 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2267 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2268 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2269 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2270 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2271 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2272 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2273 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2274 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2275 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2276 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2277 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2278 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2279 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2280 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2281 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2282 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2283 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2284 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2285 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2286 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2287 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2288 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2289 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2290 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2291 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2292 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2293 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2294 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2295 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2296 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2297 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2298 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2299 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2300 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2301 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2302 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2303 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2304 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2305 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2306 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2307 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2310 When verifying a signedData message the CMS code can enter an infinite loop
2311 if presented with an unknown hash function OID.
2313 This can be used to perform denial of service against any system which
2314 verifies signedData messages using the CMS code.
2316 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2317 <reported source="Johannes Bauer" date="20150331"/>
2320 <issue public="20150602">
2321 <cve name="2015-1791"/>
2322 <impact severity="Low"/>
2323 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2324 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2325 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2326 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2327 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2328 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2329 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2330 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2331 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2332 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2333 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2334 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2335 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2336 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2337 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2338 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2339 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2340 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2341 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2342 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2343 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2344 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2345 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2346 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2347 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2348 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2349 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2350 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2351 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2352 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2353 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2354 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2355 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2356 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2357 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2358 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2359 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2360 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2361 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2362 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2363 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2364 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2365 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2366 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2367 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2368 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2369 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2370 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2371 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2372 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2373 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2374 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2375 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2376 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2377 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2378 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2379 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2380 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2381 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2382 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2383 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2384 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2385 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2386 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2387 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2388 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2389 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2390 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2391 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2392 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2395 If a NewSessionTicket is received by a multi-threaded client when attempting to
2396 reuse a previous ticket then a race condition can occur potentially leading to
2397 a double free of the ticket data.
2399 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2400 <reported source="Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL)"/>
2403 <issue public="20150611">
2404 <cve name="2014-8176"/>
2405 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2406 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2407 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2408 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2409 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2410 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2411 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2412 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2413 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2414 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2415 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2416 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2417 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2418 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2419 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2420 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2421 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2422 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2423 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2424 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2425 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2426 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2427 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2428 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2429 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2430 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2431 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2432 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2433 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2434 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2435 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2436 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2437 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2438 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2439 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2440 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2441 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2442 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2443 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2444 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2445 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2446 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2447 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2448 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2449 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2450 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2451 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2452 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605"/>
2453 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605"/>
2454 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605"/>
2456 This vulnerability does not affect current versions of OpenSSL. It
2457 existed in previous OpenSSL versions and was fixed in June 2014.
2459 If a DTLS peer receives application data between the ChangeCipherSpec
2460 and Finished messages, buffering of such data may cause an invalid
2461 free, resulting in a segmentation fault or potentially, memory
2464 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2465 <reported source="Praveen Kariyanahalli, and subsequently by Ivan Fratric and Felix Groebert (Google)" date="20140328"/>
2467 <issue public="20150319">
2468 <impact severity="High"/>
2469 <cve name="2015-0291"/>
2470 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2471 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2474 ClientHello sigalgs DoS. If a client connects to an OpenSSL 1.0.2 server and renegotiates with an
2475 invalid signature algorithms extension a NULL pointer dereference will occur.
2476 This can be exploited in a DoS attack against the server.
2478 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2479 <reported source=" David Ramos (Stanford University)" date="20150226"/>
2482 <issue public="20150319">
2483 <cve name="2015-0290"/>
2484 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2485 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2486 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2489 Multiblock corrupted pointer.
2490 OpenSSL 1.0.2 introduced the "multiblock" performance improvement. This feature
2491 only applies on 64 bit x86 architecture platforms that support AES NI
2492 instructions. A defect in the implementation of "multiblock" can cause OpenSSL's
2493 internal write buffer to become incorrectly set to NULL when using non-blocking
2494 IO. Typically, when the user application is using a socket BIO for writing, this
2495 will only result in a failed connection. However if some other BIO is used then
2496 it is likely that a segmentation fault will be triggered, thus enabling a
2497 potential DoS attack.
2499 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2500 <reported source="Daniel Danner and Rainer Mueller" date="20150213"/>
2503 <issue public="20150319">
2504 <cve name="2015-0207"/>
2505 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2506 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2507 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2510 Segmentation fault in DTLSv1_listen.
2511 A defect in the implementation of DTLSv1_listen means that state is preserved in
2512 the SSL object from one invocation to the next that can lead to a segmentation
2513 fault. Errors processing the initial ClientHello can trigger this scenario. An
2514 example of such an error could be that a DTLS1.0 only client is attempting to
2515 connect to a DTLS1.2 only server.
2517 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2518 <reported source="Per Allansson" date="20150127"/>
2521 <issue public="20150319">
2522 <cve name="2015-0286"/>
2523 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2524 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2525 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2526 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2527 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2528 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2529 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2530 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2531 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2532 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2533 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2534 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2535 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2536 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2537 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2538 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2539 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2540 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2541 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2542 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2543 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2544 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2545 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2546 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2547 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2548 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2549 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2550 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2551 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2552 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2553 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2554 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2555 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2556 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2557 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2558 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
2559 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
2560 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
2563 Segmentation fault in ASN1_TYPE_cmp.
2564 The function ASN1_TYPE_cmp will crash with an invalid read if an attempt is
2565 made to compare ASN.1 boolean types. Since ASN1_TYPE_cmp is used to check
2566 certificate signature algorithm consistency this can be used to crash any
2567 certificate verification operation and exploited in a DoS attack. Any
2568 application which performs certificate verification is vulnerable including
2569 OpenSSL clients and servers which enable client authentication.
2571 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2572 <reported source="Stephen Henson (OpenSSL development team)"/>
2575 <issue public="20150319">
2576 <cve name="2015-0208"/>
2577 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2578 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2579 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2582 Segmentation fault for invalid PSS parameters.
2583 The signature verification routines will crash with a NULL pointer
2584 dereference if presented with an ASN.1 signature using the RSA PSS
2585 algorithm and invalid parameters. Since these routines are used to verify
2586 certificate signature algorithms this can be used to crash any
2587 certificate verification operation and exploited in a DoS attack. Any
2588 application which performs certificate verification is vulnerable including
2589 OpenSSL clients and servers which enable client authentication.
2591 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2592 <reported source="Brian Carpenter" date="20150131"/>
2595 <issue public="20150319">
2596 <cve name="2015-0287"/>
2597 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2598 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2599 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2600 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2601 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2602 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2603 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2604 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2605 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2609 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2610 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2611 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2612 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2613 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2614 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2615 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2616 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2617 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2618 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2619 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2620 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2621 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2622 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2623 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2624 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2625 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2626 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2627 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2628 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2629 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2630 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2631 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2632 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2633 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2634 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2635 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2636 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2637 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2638 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2639 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2640 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2641 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2642 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2643 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2644 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2645 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2646 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2647 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2648 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2649 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2650 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2651 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2652 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2653 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2654 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2655 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2656 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2657 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2658 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2659 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2660 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2661 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
2662 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
2663 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
2666 ASN.1 structure reuse memory corruption.
2667 Reusing a structure in ASN.1 parsing may allow an attacker to cause
2668 memory corruption via an invalid write. Such reuse is and has been
2669 strongly discouraged and is believed to be rare.
2671 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2672 <reported source="Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL development team)"/>
2675 <issue public="20150319">
2676 <cve name="2015-0289"/>
2677 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2678 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2679 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2680 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2681 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2682 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2683 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2684 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2685 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2686 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2687 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2688 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2689 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2690 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2691 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2692 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2693 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2694 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2695 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2698 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2699 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2700 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2701 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2702 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2703 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2704 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2705 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2706 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2707 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2708 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2709 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2710 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2711 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2712 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2713 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2714 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2715 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2716 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2717 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2718 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2719 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2720 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2721 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2722 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2723 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2724 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2725 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2726 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2727 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2728 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2729 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2730 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2731 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2732 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2733 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2734 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2735 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2736 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2737 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2738 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2739 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2740 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2741 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
2742 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
2743 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
2746 PKCS#7 NULL pointer dereference.
2747 The PKCS#7 parsing code does not handle missing outer ContentInfo correctly.
2748 An attacker can craft malformed ASN.1-encoded PKCS#7 blobs with
2749 missing content and trigger a NULL pointer dereference on parsing.
2750 Applications that verify PKCS#7 signatures, decrypt PKCS#7 data or
2751 otherwise parse PKCS#7 structures from untrusted sources are
2752 affected. OpenSSL clients and servers are not affected.
2754 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2755 <reported source="Michal Zalewski (Google)" date="20150216"/>
2758 <issue public="20150319">
2759 <cve name="2015-0292"/>
2760 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2761 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2762 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2763 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2764 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2765 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2766 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2767 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2768 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2769 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2770 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2771 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2772 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2773 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2774 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2775 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2776 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2777 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2778 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2779 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2780 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2781 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2782 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2783 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2784 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2785 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2786 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2787 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2788 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2789 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2790 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2791 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2792 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2793 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2794 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2795 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2796 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2797 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2798 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2799 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2800 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2801 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2802 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2803 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2804 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2805 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2806 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2807 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605"/>
2808 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605"/>
2809 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605"/>
2812 A vulnerability existed in previous versions of OpenSSL related to the
2813 processing of base64 encoded data. Any code path that reads base64 data from an
2814 untrusted source could be affected (such as the PEM processing routines).
2815 Maliciously crafted base 64 data could trigger a segmenation fault or memory
2818 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2819 <reported source="Robert Dugal, also David Ramos, also Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Red Hat)"/>
2822 <issue public="20150319">
2823 <cve name="2015-0293"/>
2824 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2825 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2826 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2827 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2828 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2829 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2830 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2831 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2832 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2833 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2834 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2835 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2836 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2837 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2838 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2839 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2840 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2841 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2842 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2843 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2844 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2845 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2846 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2847 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2848 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2849 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2850 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2851 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2852 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2853 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2854 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2855 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2856 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2857 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2858 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2859 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2860 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2861 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2862 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2863 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2864 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2865 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2866 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2867 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2868 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2869 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2870 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2871 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2872 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2873 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2874 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2875 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2876 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2877 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2878 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2879 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2880 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2881 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2882 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2883 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2884 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2885 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2886 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2887 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2888 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
2889 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
2890 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
2893 DoS via reachable assert in SSLv2 servers.
2894 A malicious client can trigger an OPENSSL_assert in
2895 servers that both support SSLv2 and enable export cipher suites by sending
2896 a specially crafted SSLv2 CLIENT-MASTER-KEY message.
2898 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2899 <reported source="Sean Burford (Google) and Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL development team)"/>
2902 <issue public="20150319">
2903 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2904 <cve name="2015-1787"/>
2905 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2906 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2909 Empty CKE with client auth and DHE.
2910 If client auth is used then a server can seg fault in the event of a DHE
2911 ciphersuite being selected and a zero length ClientKeyExchange message being
2912 sent by the client. This could be exploited in a DoS attack.
2914 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2915 <reported source="Matt Caswell (OpenSSL development team)"/>
2918 <issue public="20150310">
2919 <impact severity="Low"/>
2920 <cve name="2015-0285"/>
2921 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2922 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2925 Under certain conditions an OpenSSL 1.0.2 client can complete a handshake with
2926 an unseeded PRNG. If the handshake succeeds then the client random that has been used will have
2927 been generated from a PRNG with insufficient entropy and therefore the output
2930 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
2931 <reported source="Matt Caswell (OpenSSL development team)"/>
2934 <issue public="20150319">
2935 <impact severity="Low"/>
2936 <cve name="2015-0209"/>
2937 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2938 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2939 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2940 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2941 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2942 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2943 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2944 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2945 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2946 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2947 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2948 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2949 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2950 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2951 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2952 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2953 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2954 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2955 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2956 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2957 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2958 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2959 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2960 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2961 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2962 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2963 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2964 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2965 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2966 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2967 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2968 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2969 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2970 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2971 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2972 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2973 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2974 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2975 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2976 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2977 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2978 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2979 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2980 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2981 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2982 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2983 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2984 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2985 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2986 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2987 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2988 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2989 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2990 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2991 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2992 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2993 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2994 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2995 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2996 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2997 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2998 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2999 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3000 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3001 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3002 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3005 Use After Free following d2i_ECPrivatekey error.
3006 A malformed EC private key file consumed via the d2i_ECPrivateKey function could
3007 cause a use after free condition. This, in turn, could cause a double
3008 free in several private key parsing functions (such as d2i_PrivateKey
3009 or EVP_PKCS82PKEY) and could lead to a DoS attack or memory corruption
3010 for applications that receive EC private keys from untrusted
3011 sources. This scenario is considered rare.
3013 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3014 <reported source="The BoringSSL project"/>
3017 <issue public="20150302">
3018 <cve name="2015-0288"/>
3019 <impact severity="Low"/>
3020 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3021 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3022 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3023 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3024 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3025 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3026 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3027 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3028 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3029 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3030 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3031 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3032 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3033 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3034 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3035 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3036 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3037 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3038 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3039 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3040 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3041 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3042 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3043 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3044 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3045 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3046 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3047 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3048 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3049 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3050 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3051 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3052 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3053 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3054 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3055 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3056 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3057 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3058 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3059 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3060 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3061 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3062 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3063 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3064 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3065 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3066 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3067 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3068 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3069 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3070 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3071 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3072 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3073 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3074 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3075 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3076 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3077 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3078 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3079 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3080 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3081 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3082 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3083 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3084 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3085 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3088 X509_to_X509_REQ NULL pointer deref.
3089 The function X509_to_X509_REQ will crash with a NULL pointer dereference if
3090 the certificate key is invalid. This function is rarely used in practice.
3092 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3093 <reported source="Brian Carpenter"/>
3096 <issue public="20150108">
3097 <cve name="2015-0206"/>
3098 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3099 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3100 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3101 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3102 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3103 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3104 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3105 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3106 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3107 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3108 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3109 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3110 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3111 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3112 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3113 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3114 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3115 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3116 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3117 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3118 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3119 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3120 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3121 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3122 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3123 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3124 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3125 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3128 A memory leak can occur in the dtls1_buffer_record function under certain
3129 conditions. In particular this could occur if an attacker sent repeated
3130 DTLS records with the same sequence number but for the next epoch. The
3131 memory leak could be exploited by an attacker in a Denial of Service
3132 attack through memory exhaustion.
3134 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3135 <reported source="Chris Mueller"/>
3138 <issue public="20141021">
3139 <cve name="2014-3569"/>
3140 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3141 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3142 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3143 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3144 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3145 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3148 When openssl is built with the no-ssl3 option and a SSL v3 ClientHello is
3149 received the ssl method would be set to NULL which could later result in
3150 a NULL pointer dereference.
3152 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3153 <reported source="Frank Schmirler"/>
3156 <issue public="20150105">
3157 <cve name="2014-3572"/>
3158 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3159 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3160 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3161 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3162 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3163 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3164 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3165 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3166 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3167 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3168 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3169 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3170 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3171 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3172 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3173 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3174 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3175 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3176 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3177 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3178 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3179 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3180 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3181 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3182 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3183 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3184 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3185 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3186 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3187 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3188 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3189 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3190 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3191 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3192 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3193 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3194 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3195 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3196 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3197 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3198 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3199 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3200 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3201 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3202 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3203 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3204 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3205 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3206 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3207 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3208 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3209 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3210 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3211 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3212 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3213 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3214 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3215 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3218 An OpenSSL client will accept a handshake using an ephemeral ECDH
3219 ciphersuite using an ECDSA certificate if the server key exchange message
3220 is omitted. This effectively removes forward secrecy from the ciphersuite.
3222 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3223 <reported source="Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA"/>
3226 <issue public="20150106">
3227 <cve name="2015-0204"/>
3228 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3229 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3230 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3231 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3232 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3233 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3234 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3235 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3236 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3237 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3238 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3239 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3240 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3241 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3242 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3243 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3244 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3245 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3246 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3247 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3248 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3249 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3250 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3251 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3252 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3253 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3254 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3255 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3256 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3257 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3258 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3259 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3260 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3261 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3262 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3263 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3264 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3265 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3266 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3267 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3268 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3269 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3270 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3271 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3272 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3273 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3274 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3275 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3276 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3277 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3278 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3279 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3280 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3281 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3282 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3283 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3284 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3285 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3288 An OpenSSL client will accept the use of an RSA temporary key in a
3289 non-export RSA key exchange ciphersuite. A server could present a weak
3290 temporary key and downgrade the security of the session.
3292 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3293 <reported source="Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA"/>
3296 <issue public="20150108">
3297 <cve name="2015-0205"/>
3298 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3299 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3300 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3301 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3302 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3303 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3304 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3305 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3306 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3307 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3308 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3309 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3310 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3311 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3312 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3313 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3314 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3315 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3316 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3317 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3318 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3319 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3320 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3321 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3322 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3323 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3324 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3325 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3328 An OpenSSL server will accept a DH certificate for client authentication
3329 without the certificate verify message. This effectively allows a client
3330 to authenticate without the use of a private key. This only affects
3331 servers which trust a client certificate authority which issues
3332 certificates containing DH keys: these are extremely rare and hardly ever
3335 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3336 <reported source="Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA"/>
3339 <issue public="20150105">
3340 <cve name="2014-8275"/>
3341 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3342 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3343 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3344 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3345 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3346 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3347 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3348 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3349 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3350 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3351 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3352 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3353 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3354 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3355 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3356 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3357 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3358 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3359 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3360 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3361 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3362 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3363 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3364 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3365 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3366 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3367 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3368 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3369 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3370 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3371 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3372 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3373 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3374 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3375 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3376 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3377 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3378 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3379 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3380 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3381 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3382 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3383 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3384 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3385 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3386 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3387 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3388 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3389 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3390 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3391 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3392 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3393 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3394 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3395 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3396 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3397 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3398 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3401 OpenSSL accepts several non-DER-variations of certificate signature
3402 algorithm and signature encodings. OpenSSL also does not enforce a
3403 match between the signature algorithm between the signed and unsigned
3404 portions of the certificate. By modifying the contents of the
3405 signature algorithm or the encoding of the signature, it is possible
3406 to change the certificate's fingerprint.
3408 This does not allow an attacker to forge certificates, and does not
3409 affect certificate verification or OpenSSL servers/clients in any other
3410 way. It also does not affect common revocation mechanisms. Only custom
3411 applications that rely on the uniqueness of the fingerprint (e.g.
3412 certificate blacklists) may be affected.
3414 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3415 <reported source="Antti Karjalainen and Tuomo Untinen from the Codenomicon CROSS program/Konrad Kraszewski from Google"/>
3418 <issue public="20150108">
3419 <cve name="2014-3570"/>
3420 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3421 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3422 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3423 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3424 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3425 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3426 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3427 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3428 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3429 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3430 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3431 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3432 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3433 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3434 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3435 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3436 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3437 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3438 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3439 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3440 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3441 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3442 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3443 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3444 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3445 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3446 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3447 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3448 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3449 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3450 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3451 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3452 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3453 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3454 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3455 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3456 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3457 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3458 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3459 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3460 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3461 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3462 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3463 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3464 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3465 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3466 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3467 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3468 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3469 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3470 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3471 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3472 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3473 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3474 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3475 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3476 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3477 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3480 Bignum squaring (BN_sqr) may produce incorrect results on some platforms,
3481 including x86_64. This bug occurs at random with a very low probability,
3482 and is not known to be exploitable in any way, though its exact impact is
3483 difficult to determine. The following has been determined:
3485 *) The probability of BN_sqr producing an incorrect result at random is
3486 very low: 1/2^64 on the single affected 32-bit platform (MIPS) and 1/2^128
3487 on affected 64-bit platforms.
3488 *) On most platforms, RSA follows a different code path and RSA operations
3489 are not affected at all. For the remaining platforms (e.g. OpenSSL built
3490 without assembly support), pre-existing countermeasures thwart bug
3492 *) Static ECDH is theoretically affected: it is possible to construct
3493 elliptic curve points that would falsely appear to be on the given curve.
3494 However, there is no known computationally feasible way to construct such
3495 points with low order, and so the security of static ECDH private keys is
3496 believed to be unaffected.
3497 *) Other routines known to be theoretically affected are modular
3498 exponentiation, primality testing, DSA, RSA blinding, JPAKE and SRP. No
3499 exploits are known and straightforward bug attacks fail - either the
3500 attacker cannot control when the bug triggers, or no private key material
3503 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3504 <reported source="Pieter Wuille (Blockstream)"/>
3507 <issue public="20141015">
3508 <cve name="2014-3513"/>
3509 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3510 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3511 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3512 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3513 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3514 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3515 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3516 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3517 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3518 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3519 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20141015"/>
3521 A flaw in the DTLS SRTP extension parsing code allows an attacker, who
3522 sends a carefully crafted handshake message, to cause OpenSSL to fail
3523 to free up to 64k of memory causing a memory leak. This could be
3524 exploited in a Denial Of Service attack. This issue affects OpenSSL
3525 1.0.1 server implementations for both SSL/TLS and DTLS regardless of
3526 whether SRTP is used or configured. Implementations of OpenSSL that
3527 have been compiled with OPENSSL_NO_SRTP defined are not affected.
3529 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20141015.txt"/>
3530 <reported source="LibreSSL project"/>
3533 <issue public="20141015">
3534 <cve name="2014-3567"/>
3535 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3536 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3537 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3538 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3539 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3540 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3541 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3542 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3543 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3544 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3545 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3546 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3547 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3548 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3549 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3550 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3551 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3552 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3553 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3554 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3555 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3556 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3557 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3558 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3559 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3560 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3561 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3562 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3563 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3564 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3565 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3566 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3567 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3568 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3569 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3570 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3571 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3572 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3573 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3574 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3575 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3576 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3577 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3578 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3579 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3580 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20140806"/>
3581 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o" date="20140806"/>
3582 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc" date="20140806"/>
3584 When an OpenSSL SSL/TLS/DTLS server receives a session ticket the
3585 integrity of that ticket is first verified. In the event of a session
3586 ticket integrity check failing, OpenSSL will fail to free memory
3587 causing a memory leak. By sending a large number of invalid session
3588 tickets an attacker could exploit this issue in a Denial Of Service
3591 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20141015.txt"/>
3593 <issue public="20141015">
3594 <cve name=""/> <!-- this is deliberate -->
3595 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3596 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3597 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3598 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3599 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3600 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3601 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3602 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3603 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3604 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3605 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3609 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3610 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3611 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3612 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3613 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3614 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3615 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3616 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3617 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3618 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3619 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3620 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3621 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3622 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3623 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3624 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3625 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3626 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3627 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3628 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3629 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3630 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3631 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3632 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3633 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3634 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3635 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3636 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3637 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3638 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3639 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3640 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3641 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3642 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3643 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3644 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3645 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3646 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3647 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20140806"/>
3648 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o" date="20140806"/>
3649 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc" date="20140806"/>
3651 OpenSSL has added support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to allow applications
3652 to block the ability for a MITM attacker to force a protocol
3655 Some client applications (such as browsers) will reconnect using a
3656 downgraded protocol to work around interoperability bugs in older
3657 servers. This could be exploited by an active man-in-the-middle to
3658 downgrade connections to SSL 3.0 even if both sides of the connection
3659 support higher protocols. SSL 3.0 contains a number of weaknesses
3660 including POODLE (CVE-2014-3566).
3663 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-00 and
3664 https://www.openssl.org/~bodo/ssl-poodle.pdf
3668 <issue public="20141015">
3669 <cve name="2014-3568"/>
3670 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3671 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3672 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3673 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3674 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3675 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3676 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3677 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3678 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3679 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3680 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3681 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3682 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3683 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3684 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3685 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3686 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3687 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3688 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3689 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3690 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3691 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3692 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3693 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3694 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3695 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3698 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3699 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3700 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3701 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3702 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3703 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3704 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3705 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3706 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3707 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3708 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3709 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3710 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3711 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3712 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3713 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3714 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3715 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3716 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3717 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3718 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3719 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3720 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3721 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3722 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20140806"/>
3723 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o" date="20140806"/>
3724 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc" date="20140806"/>
3727 When OpenSSL is configured with "no-ssl3" as a build option, servers
3728 could accept and complete a SSL 3.0 handshake, and clients could be
3729 configured to send them.
3731 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20141015.txt"/>
3732 <reported source="Akamai Technologies"/>
3734 <issue public="20140806">
3735 <cve name="2014-3508"/>
3736 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3737 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3738 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3739 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3740 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3741 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3742 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3743 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3744 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3745 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3746 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3747 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3748 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3749 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3750 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3751 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3752 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3753 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3754 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3755 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3756 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3757 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3758 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3759 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3760 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3761 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3762 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3763 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3764 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3765 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3766 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3767 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3768 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3769 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3770 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3771 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3772 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3773 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3774 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3775 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3776 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3777 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3778 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3779 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3780 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3781 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3782 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3783 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3784 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3785 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
3787 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
3789 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
3792 A flaw in OBJ_obj2txt may cause pretty printing functions such as
3793 X509_name_oneline, X509_name_print_ex, to leak some information from the
3794 stack. Applications may be affected if they echo pretty printing output to the
3795 attacker. OpenSSL SSL/TLS clients and servers themselves are not affected.
3797 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
3798 <reported source="Ivan Fratric (Google)"/>
3801 <issue public="20140806">
3802 <cve name="2014-5139"/>
3804 A crash was found affecting SRP ciphersuites used in a Server Hello message.
3805 The issue affects OpenSSL clients and allows a malicious server to crash
3806 the client with a null pointer dereference (read) by specifying an SRP
3807 ciphersuite even though it was not properly negotiated with the client. This
3808 could lead to a Denial of Service.
3810 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3811 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3812 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3813 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3814 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3815 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3816 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3817 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3818 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3819 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
3821 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
3822 <reported source="Joonas Kuorilehto and Riku Hietamäki (Codenomicon)"/>
3825 <issue public="20140806">
3826 <cve name="2014-3509"/>
3827 <description>A race condition was found in ssl_parse_serverhello_tlsext.
3828 If a multithreaded client connects to a malicious server using a resumed session
3829 and the server sends an ec point format extension, it could write up to 255 bytes
3830 to freed memory.</description>
3831 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3832 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3833 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3834 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3835 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3836 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3837 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3838 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3839 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3840 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3841 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3842 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3843 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3844 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3845 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3846 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3847 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3848 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3849 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3850 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3851 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3852 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3853 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
3855 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
3857 <reported source="Gabor Tyukasz (LogMeIn Inc)"/>
3858 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
3861 <issue public="20140806">
3862 <cve name="2014-3505"/>
3863 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3864 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3865 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3866 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3867 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3868 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3869 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3870 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3871 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3872 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3873 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3874 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3875 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3876 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3877 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3878 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3879 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3880 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3881 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3882 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3883 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3884 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3885 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3886 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3887 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3888 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3889 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3890 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3891 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3892 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3893 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3894 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3895 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3896 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3897 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3898 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3899 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
3901 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
3903 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
3906 A Double Free was found when processing DTLS packets.
3907 An attacker can force an error condition which causes openssl to crash whilst
3908 processing DTLS packets due to memory being freed twice. This could lead to a
3909 Denial of Service attack.
3911 <reported source="Adam Langley and Wan-Teh Chang (Google)"/>
3912 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
3915 <issue public="20140806">
3916 <cve name="2014-3506"/>
3917 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3918 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3919 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3920 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3921 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3922 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3923 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3924 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3925 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3926 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3927 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3928 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3929 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3930 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3931 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3932 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3933 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3934 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3935 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3936 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3937 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3938 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3939 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3940 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3941 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3942 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3943 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3944 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3945 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3946 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3947 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3948 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3949 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3950 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3951 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3952 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3953 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3954 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3955 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3956 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3957 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3958 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3959 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3960 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3961 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3962 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3963 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3964 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3965 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3966 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
3968 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
3970 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
3973 A DTLS flaw leading to memory exhaustion was found.
3974 An attacker can force openssl to consume large amounts of memory whilst
3975 processing DTLS handshake messages. This could lead to a Denial of
3978 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google)"/>
3979 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
3982 <issue public="20140806">
3983 <cve name="2014-3507"/>
3984 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3985 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3986 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3987 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3988 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3989 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3990 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3991 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3992 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3993 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3994 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3995 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3996 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3997 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3998 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3999 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4000 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4001 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4002 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4003 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4004 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4005 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4006 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4007 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4008 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4009 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4010 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4011 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4012 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4013 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4014 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4015 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4016 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4017 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4019 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4021 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4024 A DTLS memory leak from zero-length fragments was found.
4025 By sending carefully crafted DTLS packets an attacker could cause OpenSSL to
4026 leak memory. This could lead to a Denial of Service attack.
4028 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google)"/>
4029 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4032 <issue public="20140806">
4033 <cve name="2014-3510"/>
4034 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4035 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4036 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4037 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4038 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4039 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4040 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4041 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4042 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4043 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4044 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4045 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4046 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4047 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4048 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4049 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4050 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4051 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4052 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4053 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4054 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4055 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4056 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4057 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4058 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4059 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4060 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4061 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4062 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4063 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4064 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4065 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4066 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4067 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4068 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4069 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4070 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4071 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4072 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4073 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4074 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4075 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4076 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4077 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4078 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4079 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4080 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4081 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4082 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4083 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4085 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4087 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4090 A flaw in handling DTLS anonymous EC(DH) ciphersuites was found.
4091 OpenSSL DTLS clients enabling anonymous (EC)DH ciphersuites are subject to a
4092 denial of service attack. A malicious server can crash the client with a null
4093 pointer dereference (read) by specifying an anonymous (EC)DH ciphersuite and
4094 sending carefully crafted handshake messages.
4096 <reported source="Felix Gröbert (Google)"/>
4097 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4100 <issue public="20140806">
4101 <cve name="2014-3511"/>
4102 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4103 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4104 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4105 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4106 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4107 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4108 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4109 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4110 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4111 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4114 A flaw in the OpenSSL SSL/TLS server code causes the server to negotiate
4115 TLS 1.0 instead of higher protocol versions when the ClientHello message is
4116 badly fragmented. This allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to force a
4117 downgrade to TLS 1.0 even if both the server and the client support a higher
4118 protocol version, by modifying the client's TLS records.
4120 <reported source="David Benjamin and Adam Langley (Google)"/>
4121 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4124 <issue public="20140806">
4125 <cve name="2014-3512"/>
4126 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4127 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4128 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4129 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4130 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4131 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4132 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4133 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4134 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4135 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4138 A SRP buffer overrun was found.
4139 A malicious client or server can send invalid SRP parameters and overrun
4140 an internal buffer. Only applications which are explicitly set up for SRP
4143 <reported source="Sean Devlin and Watson Ladd (Cryptography Services, NCC Group)"/>
4144 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4147 <issue public="20020730">
4148 <cve name="2002-0655"/>
4149 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4150 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4151 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4152 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4153 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4154 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e" date="20020730"/>
4155 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4156 <reported source="OpenSSL Group (A.L. Digital)"/>
4158 Inproper handling of ASCII representations of integers on
4159 64 bit platforms allowed remote attackers to cause a denial of
4160 service or possibly execute arbitrary code.
4164 <issue public="20020730">
4165 <cve name="2002-0656"/>
4166 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4167 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4168 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4169 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4170 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4171 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e" date="20020730"/>
4172 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4173 <reported source="OpenSSL Group (A.L. Digital)"/>
4175 A buffer overflow allowed remote attackers to execute
4176 arbitrary code by sending a large client master key in SSL2 or a
4177 large session ID in SSL3.
4181 <issue public="20020730">
4182 <cve name="2002-0657"/>
4183 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4184 <reported source="OpenSSL Group (A.L. Digital)"/>
4186 A buffer overflow when Kerberos is enabled allowed attackers
4187 to execute arbitrary code by sending a long master key. Note that this
4188 flaw did not affect any released version of 0.9.6 or 0.9.7
4192 <issue public="20020730">
4193 <cve name="2002-0659"/>
4194 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4195 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4196 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4197 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4198 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e" date="20020730"/>
4200 A flaw in the ASN1 library allowed remote attackers to cause a denial of
4201 service by sending invalid encodings.
4206 <cve name="2002-1568"/>
4207 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4208 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f" date="20020808"/>
4210 The use of assertions when detecting buffer overflow attacks
4211 allowed remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) by
4212 sending certain messages to cause
4213 OpenSSL to abort from a failed assertion, as demonstrated using SSLv2
4214 CLIENT_MASTER_KEY messages, which were not properly handled in
4219 <issue public="20030219">
4220 <cve name="2003-0078"/>
4221 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4222 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4223 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4224 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4225 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4226 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4227 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4228 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4229 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4230 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4231 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a" date="20030219"/>
4232 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i" date="20030219"/>
4233 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030219.txt"/>
4235 sl3_get_record in s3_pkt.c did not perform a MAC computation if an
4236 incorrect block cipher padding was used, causing an information leak
4237 (timing discrepancy) that may make it easier to launch cryptographic
4238 attacks that rely on distinguishing between padding and MAC
4239 verification errors, possibly leading to extraction of the original
4240 plaintext, aka the "Vaudenay timing attack."
4244 <issue public="20030319">
4245 <cve name="2003-0131"/>
4246 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4247 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4248 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4249 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4250 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4251 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4252 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4253 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4254 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4255 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4256 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4257 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4258 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j" date="20030410"/>
4259 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b" date="20030410"/>
4260 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030319.txt"/>
4262 The SSL and TLS components allowed remote attackers to perform an
4263 unauthorized RSA private key operation via a modified Bleichenbacher
4264 attack that uses a large number of SSL or TLS connections using PKCS #1
4265 v1.5 padding that caused OpenSSL to leak information regarding the
4266 relationship between ciphertext and the associated plaintext, aka the
4267 "Klima-Pokorny-Rosa attack"
4271 <issue public="20030314">
4272 <cve name="2003-0147"/>
4273 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4274 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4275 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4276 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4277 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4278 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4279 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4280 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4281 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4282 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4283 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4284 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4285 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030317.txt"/>
4286 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b" date="20030410"/>
4287 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j" date="20030410"/>
4289 RSA blinding was not enabled by default, which could allow local and
4290 remote attackers to obtain a server's private key by determining
4291 factors using timing differences on (1) the number of extra reductions
4292 during Montgomery reduction, and (2) the use of different integer
4293 multiplication algorithms ("Karatsuba" and normal).
4297 <issue public="20030930">
4298 <cve name="2003-0543"/>
4299 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4300 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4301 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4302 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4303 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4304 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4305 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4306 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4307 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4308 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4309 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4310 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4311 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4312 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4313 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c" date="20030930"/>
4314 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k" date="20030930"/>
4315 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030930.txt"/>
4316 <reported source="NISCC"/>
4318 An integer overflow could allow remote attackers to cause a denial of
4319 service (crash) via an SSL client certificate with certain ASN.1 tag
4324 <issue public="20030930">
4325 <cve name="2003-0544"/>
4326 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4327 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4328 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4329 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4330 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4331 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4332 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4333 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4334 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4335 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4336 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4337 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4338 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4339 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4340 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k" date="20030930"/>
4341 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c" date="20030930"/>
4342 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030930.txt"/>
4343 <reported source="NISCC"/>
4345 Incorrect tracking of the number of characters in certain
4346 ASN.1 inputs could allow remote attackers to cause a denial of
4347 service (crash) by sending an SSL client certificate that causes OpenSSL to
4348 read past the end of a buffer when the long form is used.
4352 <issue public="20030930">
4353 <cve name="2003-0545"/>
4354 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4355 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4356 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4357 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c" date="20030930"/>
4358 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030930.txt"/>
4359 <reported source="NISCC"/>
4361 Certain ASN.1 encodings that were rejected as invalid by the parser could
4362 trigger a bug in the deallocation of the corresponding data structure,
4363 corrupting the stack, leading to a crash.
4367 <issue public="20031104">
4368 <cve name="2003-0851"/>
4369 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4370 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l" date="20031104"/>
4371 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20031104.txt"/>
4372 <reported source="Novell"/>
4374 A flaw in OpenSSL 0.9.6k (only) would cause certain ASN.1 sequences to
4375 trigger a large recursion. On platforms such as Windows this large
4376 recursion cannot be handled correctly and so the bug causes OpenSSL to
4377 crash. A remote attacker could exploit this flaw if they can send
4378 arbitrary ASN.1 sequences which would cause OpenSSL to crash. This
4379 could be performed for example by sending a client certificate to a
4380 SSL/TLS enabled server which is configured to accept them.
4384 <issue public="20040317">
4385 <cve name="2004-0079"/>
4386 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4387 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4388 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4389 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4390 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4391 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4392 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4393 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4394 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4395 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4396 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4397 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4398 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4399 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4400 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d" date="20040317"/>
4401 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m" date="20040317"/>
4402 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20040317.txt"/>
4403 <reported source="OpenSSL group"/>
4405 The Codenomicon TLS Test Tool uncovered a null-pointer assignment in the
4406 do_change_cipher_spec() function. A remote attacker could perform a
4407 carefully crafted SSL/TLS handshake against a server that used the
4408 OpenSSL library in such a way as to cause a crash.
4412 <issue public="20040317">
4413 <cve name="2004-0081"/>
4414 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4415 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4416 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4417 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4418 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030317.txt"/>
4419 <reported source="OpenSSL group"/>
4421 The Codenomicon TLS Test Tool found that some unknown message types
4422 were handled incorrectly, allowing a remote attacker to cause a denial
4423 of service (infinite loop).
4427 <issue public="20040317">
4428 <cve name="2004-0112"/>
4429 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4430 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4431 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4432 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d" date="20040317"/>
4433 <reported source="OpenSSL group (Stephen Henson)"/>
4434 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20040317.txt"/>
4436 A flaw in SSL/TLS handshaking code when using Kerberos ciphersuites.
4437 A remote attacker could perform a carefully crafted SSL/TLS handshake
4438 against a server configured to use Kerberos ciphersuites in such a way
4439 as to cause OpenSSL to crash. Most applications have no ability to
4440 use Kerberos ciphersuites and will therefore be unaffected.
4444 <issue public="20040930">
4445 <cve name="2004-0975"/>
4446 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4447 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4448 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4449 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4450 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4451 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4452 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4453 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4454 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4455 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4456 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4457 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4458 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4459 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4460 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4461 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4462 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4463 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4464 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4465 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
4466 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f" date="20050322"/>
4467 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6-cvs" date="20041114"/>
4468 <!-- der_chop was removed 20041114 -->
4471 The der_chop script created temporary files insecurely which could
4472 allow local users to overwrite files via a symlink attack on temporary
4473 files. Note that it is quite unlikely that a user would be using the
4474 redundant der_chop script, and this script was removed from the OpenSSL
4479 <issue public="20051011">
4480 <cve name="2005-2969"/>
4481 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4482 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4483 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4484 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4485 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4486 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4487 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
4488 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
4489 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4490 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4491 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4492 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4493 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4494 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4495 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4496 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4497 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4498 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4499 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4500 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4501 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4502 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4503 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
4504 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h" date="20051011"/>
4505 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a" date="20051011"/>
4507 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20051011.txt"/>
4508 <reported source="researcher"/>
4511 A deprecated option, SSL_OP_MISE_SSLV2_RSA_PADDING, could allow an
4512 attacker acting as a "man in the middle" to force a connection to
4513 downgrade to SSL 2.0 even if both parties support better protocols.
4517 <issue public="20060905">
4518 <cve name="2006-4339"/>
4519 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4520 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4521 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4522 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4523 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4524 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4525 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
4526 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
4527 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
4528 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
4529 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
4530 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4531 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4532 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4533 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4534 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4535 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4536 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4537 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4538 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4539 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4540 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4541 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4542 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4543 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4544 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4545 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4546 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
4547 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k" date="20060905"/>
4548 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c" date="20060905"/>
4550 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060905.txt"/>
4551 <reported source="openssl"/>
4554 Daniel Bleichenbacher discovered an attack on PKCS #1 v1.5
4555 signatures where under certain circumstances it may be possible
4556 for an attacker to forge a PKCS #1 v1.5 signature that would be incorrectly
4557 verified by OpenSSL.
4561 <issue public="20060928">
4562 <cve name="2006-2937"/>
4563 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4564 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4565 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4566 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4567 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4568 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4569 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
4570 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
4571 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
4572 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
4573 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
4574 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
4575 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4576 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4577 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4578 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4579 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
4580 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
4582 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
4583 <reported source="openssl"/>
4586 During the parsing of certain invalid ASN.1 structures an error
4587 condition is mishandled. This can result in an infinite loop which
4588 consumes system memory
4592 <issue public="20060928">
4593 <cve name="2006-2940"/>
4594 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4595 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4596 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4597 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4598 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4599 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4600 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
4601 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
4602 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
4603 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
4604 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
4605 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
4606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4609 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4610 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4611 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4612 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4613 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4614 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4615 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4616 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4617 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4618 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4619 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4620 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4621 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4622 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4623 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
4624 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
4625 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
4627 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
4628 <reported source="openssl"/>
4631 Certain types of public key can take disproportionate amounts of
4632 time to process. This could be used by an attacker in a denial of
4637 <issue public="20060928">
4638 <cve name="2006-3738"/>
4639 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4640 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4641 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4642 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4643 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4644 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4645 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
4646 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
4647 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
4648 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
4649 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
4650 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
4651 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4652 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4653 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4654 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4655 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4656 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4657 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4658 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4659 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4660 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4661 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4662 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4663 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4664 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4665 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4666 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4667 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4668 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
4669 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
4670 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
4672 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
4673 <reported source="openssl"/>
4676 A buffer overflow was discovered in the SSL_get_shared_ciphers()
4677 utility function. An attacker could send a list of ciphers to an
4678 application that uses this function and overrun a buffer.
4682 <issue public="20060928">
4683 <cve name="2006-4343"/>
4684 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4685 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4686 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4687 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
4688 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
4689 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
4690 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
4691 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
4692 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
4693 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
4694 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
4695 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
4696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4698 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4699 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4700 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4701 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4702 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4703 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4704 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4705 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4706 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4707 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4708 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4709 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4710 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4711 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4712 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
4713 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
4714 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
4715 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
4717 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
4718 <reported source="openssl"/>
4721 A flaw in the SSLv2 client code was discovered. When a client
4722 application used OpenSSL to create an SSLv2 connection to a malicious
4723 server, that server could cause the client to crash.
4727 <issue public="20071012">
4728 <cve name="2007-4995"/>
4729 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4730 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4731 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4732 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4733 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4734 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4735 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f" date="20071012"/>
4736 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20071012.txt"/>
4737 <reported source="Andy Polyakov"/>
4740 A flaw in DTLS support. An attacker
4741 could create a malicious client or server that could trigger a heap
4742 overflow. This is possibly exploitable to run arbitrary code, but it has
4747 <issue public="20071012">
4748 <cve name="2007-5135"/>
4749 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4750 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4751 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4752 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4753 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4754 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4755 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f" date="20071012"/>
4756 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20071012.txt"/>
4757 <reported source="Moritz Jodeit"/>
4760 A flaw was found in the SSL_get_shared_ciphers() utility function. An
4761 attacker could send a list of ciphers to an application that used this
4762 function and overrun a buffer with a single byte. Few
4763 applications make use of this vulnerable function and generally it is used
4764 only when applications are compiled for debugging.
4768 <issue public="20071129">
4769 <cve name="2007-5502"/>
4770 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20071129.txt"/>
4771 <reported source="Geoff Lowe"/>
4774 The PRNG implementation for the OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 1.1.1 does
4775 not perform auto-seeding during the FIPS self-test, which generates
4776 random data that is more predictable than expected and makes it easier
4777 for attackers to bypass protection mechanisms that rely on the
4782 <issue public="20080528">
4783 <cve name="2008-0891"/>
4784 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4785 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4786 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h" date="20080528"/>
4787 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20080528.txt"/>
4788 <reported source="codenomicon"/>
4790 Testing using the Codenomicon TLS test suite discovered a flaw in the
4791 handling of server name extension data in OpenSSL 0.9.8f and OpenSSL
4792 0.9.8g. If OpenSSL has been compiled using the non-default TLS server
4793 name extensions, a remote attacker could send a carefully crafted
4794 packet to a server application using OpenSSL and cause it to crash.
4798 <issue public="20080528">
4799 <cve name="2008-1672"/>
4800 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4801 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4802 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h" date="20080528"/>
4803 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20080528.txt"/>
4804 <reported source="codenomicon"/>
4806 Testing using the Codenomicon TLS test suite discovered a flaw if the
4807 'Server Key exchange message' is omitted from a TLS handshake in
4808 OpenSSL 0.9.8f and OpenSSL 0.9.8g. If a client connects to a
4809 malicious server with particular cipher suites, the server could cause
4810 the client to crash.
4814 <issue public="20090107">
4815 <cve name="2008-5077"/>
4816 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4817 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4818 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4819 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4820 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4821 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4822 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4823 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4824 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4825 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4826 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j" date="20090107"/>
4827 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090107.txt"/>
4828 <reported source="google"/>
4831 The Google Security Team discovered several functions inside OpenSSL
4832 incorrectly checked the result after calling the EVP_VerifyFinal
4833 function, allowing a malformed signature to be treated as a good
4834 signature rather than as an error. This issue affected the signature
4835 checks on DSA and ECDSA keys used with SSL/TLS. One way to exploit
4836 this flaw would be for a remote attacker who is in control of a
4837 malicious server or who can use a 'man in the middle' attack to
4838 present a malformed SSL/TLS signature from a certificate chain to a
4839 vulnerable client, bypassing validation.
4843 <issue public="20090325">
4844 <cve name="2009-0590"/>
4845 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4846 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4847 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4848 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4849 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4850 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4851 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4852 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4853 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4854 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4855 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4856 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k" date="20090325"/>
4857 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090325.txt"/>
4859 The function ASN1_STRING_print_ex() when used to print a BMPString or
4860 UniversalString will crash with an invalid memory access if the
4861 encoded length of the string is illegal. Any OpenSSL application
4862 which prints out the contents of a certificate could be affected by
4863 this bug, including SSL servers, clients and S/MIME software.
4867 <issue public="20090325">
4868 <cve name="2009-0591"/>
4869 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4870 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4871 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4872 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k" date="20090325"/>
4873 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090325.txt"/>
4874 <reported source="Ivan Nestlerode, IBM"/>
4876 The function CMS_verify() does not correctly handle an error condition
4877 involving malformed signed attributes. This will cause an invalid set
4878 of signed attributes to appear valid and content digests will not be
4883 <issue public="20090325">
4884 <cve name="2009-0789"/>
4885 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4886 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4887 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4888 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4889 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4890 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4891 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4892 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4893 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4894 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4895 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4896 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k" date="20090325"/>
4897 <reported source="Paolo Ganci"/>
4898 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090325.txt"/>
4900 When a malformed ASN1 structure is received it's contents are freed up and
4901 zeroed and an error condition returned. On a small number of platforms where
4902 sizeof(long) < sizeof(void *) (for example WIN64) this can cause an invalid
4903 memory access later resulting in a crash when some invalid structures are
4904 read, for example RSA public keys.
4908 <issue public="20090602">
4909 <cve name="2009-1386"/>
4910 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4911 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4912 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4913 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4914 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4915 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4916 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4917 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4918 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4919 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i" date="20080915"/>
4920 <reported source="Alex Lam"/>
4922 Fix a NULL pointer dereference if a DTLS server recieved
4923 ChangeCipherSpec as first record.
4924 A remote attacker could use this flaw to cause a DTLS server to crash
4928 <issue public="20091105">
4929 <cve name="2009-3555"/>
4930 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4931 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4932 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4933 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4934 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4935 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4936 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4937 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4938 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4939 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4940 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4941 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4942 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4943 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
4944 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20091111.txt"/>
4946 Implement RFC5746 to address vulnerabilities in SSL/TLS renegotiation.
4950 <issue public="20090205">
4951 <cve name="2009-1387"/>
4952 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4953 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4954 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4955 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4956 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4957 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4958 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4959 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4960 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4961 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4962 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4963 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4964 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4965 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
4966 <reported source="Robin Seggelmann"/>
4968 Fix denial of service flaw due in the DTLS implementation. A
4969 remote attacker could use this flaw to cause a DTLS server to crash.
4973 <issue public="20090512">
4974 <cve name="2009-1377"/>
4975 <cve name="2009-1378"/>
4976 <cve name="2009-1379"/>
4977 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4978 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4979 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4980 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4981 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4982 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4983 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4984 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4985 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4986 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4987 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4988 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4989 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4990 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
4991 <reported source="Daniel Mentz, Robin Seggelmann"/>
4993 Fix denial of service flaws in the DTLS implementation. A
4994 remote attacker could use these flaws to cause a DTLS server to use
4995 excessive amounts of memory, or crash.
4999 <issue public="20100113">
5000 <cve name="2009-4355"/>
5001 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5002 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5003 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5004 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5005 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5006 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5007 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5008 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5009 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5010 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5011 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5012 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5013 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5014 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
5015 <reported source="Michael K Johnson and Andy Grimm (rPath)"/>
5017 A memory leak in the zlib_stateful_finish function in crypto/comp/c_zlib.c
5018 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service
5019 via vectors that trigger incorrect calls to the CRYPTO_cleanup_all_ex_data
5024 <issue public="20100223">
5025 <cve name="2009-3245"/>
5026 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5027 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5028 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5029 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5030 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5031 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5032 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5033 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5034 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5035 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5036 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5037 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5038 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5039 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
5040 <reported source="Martin Olsson, Neel Mehta"/>
5042 It was discovered that OpenSSL did not always check the return value of the
5043 bn_wexpand() function. An attacker able to trigger a memory allocation failure
5044 in that function could cause an application using the OpenSSL library to crash
5045 or, possibly, execute arbitrary code
5049 <issue public="20100119">
5050 <cve name="2010-0433"/>
5051 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5052 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5053 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5054 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5055 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5056 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5057 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5058 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5059 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5060 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5061 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5062 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5063 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5064 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5065 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n" date="20100324"/>
5066 <reported source="Todd Rinaldo, Tomas Hoger (Red Hat)"/>
5068 A missing return value check flaw was discovered in OpenSSL, that could
5069 possibly cause OpenSSL to call a Kerberos library function with invalid
5070 arguments, resulting in a NULL pointer dereference crash in the MIT
5071 Kerberos library. In certain configurations, a remote attacker could use
5072 this flaw to crash a TLS/SSL server using OpenSSL by requesting Kerberos
5073 cipher suites during the TLS handshake
5077 <issue public="20100324">
5078 <cve name="2010-0740"/>
5079 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5080 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5081 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5082 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5083 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5084 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5085 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5086 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5087 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n" date="20100324"/>
5088 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20100324.txt"/>
5089 <reported source="Bodo Moeller and Adam Langley (Google)"/>
5091 In TLS connections, certain incorrectly formatted records can cause an
5092 OpenSSL client or server to crash due to a read attempt at NULL.
5096 <issue public="20100601">
5097 <cve name="2010-0742"/>
5098 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5099 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5100 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5101 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5102 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5103 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5104 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5105 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5106 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o" date="20100601"/>
5107 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a" date="20100601"/>
5108 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20100601.txt"/>
5109 <reported source="Ronald Moesbergen"/>
5111 A flaw in the handling of CMS structures containing OriginatorInfo was found which
5112 could lead to a write to invalid memory address or double free. CMS support is
5113 disabled by default in OpenSSL 0.9.8 versions.
5117 <issue public="20100601">
5118 <cve name="2010-1633"/>
5119 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5120 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a" date="20100601"/>
5121 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20100601.txt"/>
5122 <reported source="Peter-Michael Hager"/>
5124 An invalid Return value check in pkey_rsa_verifyrecover was
5125 discovered. When verification recovery fails for RSA keys an
5126 uninitialised buffer with an undefined length is returned instead of
5127 an error code. This could lead to an information leak.
5131 <issue public="20101116">
5132 <cve name="2010-3864"/>
5133 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5134 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5135 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5136 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5137 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5138 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5139 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5140 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5141 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5142 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5143 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5144 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5145 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5146 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5147 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5148 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5149 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5150 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5151 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b" date="20101116"/>
5152 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p" date="20101116"/>
5153 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20101116.txt"/>
5154 <reported source="Rob Hulswit"/>
5157 A flaw in the OpenSSL TLS server extension code parsing which on
5158 affected servers can be exploited in a buffer overrun attack. Any
5159 OpenSSL based TLS server is vulnerable if it is multi-threaded and
5160 uses OpenSSL's internal caching mechanism. Servers that are
5161 multi-process and/or disable internal session caching are NOT
5167 <issue public="20101202">
5168 <cve name="2010-4252"/>
5169 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5170 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5171 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5172 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c" date="20101202"/>
5173 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20101202.txt"/>
5174 <reported source="Sebastian Martini"/>
5176 An error in OpenSSL's experimental J-PAKE implementation which could
5177 lead to successful validation by someone with no knowledge of the
5178 shared secret. The OpenSSL Team still consider the implementation of
5179 J-PAKE to be experimental and is not compiled by default.
5183 <issue public="20101202">
5184 <cve name="2010-4180"/>
5185 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5186 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5187 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5188 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5189 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5190 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5191 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5192 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5193 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5194 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5195 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5196 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5197 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5198 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5199 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5200 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5201 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5202 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5203 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5204 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5205 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c" date="20101202"/>
5206 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q" date="20101202"/>
5207 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20101202.txt"/>
5208 <reported source="Martin Rex"/>
5210 A flaw in the OpenSSL SSL/TLS server code where an old bug workaround
5211 allows malicious clients to modify the stored session cache
5212 ciphersuite. In some cases the ciphersuite can be downgraded to a
5213 weaker one on subsequent connections. This issue only affects OpenSSL
5214 based SSL/TLS server if it uses OpenSSL's internal caching mechanisms
5215 and the SSL_OP_NETSCAPE_REUSE_CIPHER_CHANGE_BUG flag (many
5216 applications enable this by using the SSL_OP_ALL option).
5220 <issue public="20110906">
5221 <cve name="2011-3207"/>
5222 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5223 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5224 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5225 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5226 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5227 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e" date="20110906"/>
5228 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20110906.txt"/>
5229 <reported source="Kaspar Brand"/>
5231 Under certain circumstances OpenSSL's internal certificate
5232 verification routines can incorrectly accept a CRL whose nextUpdate
5233 field is in the past. Applications are only affected by the CRL
5234 checking vulnerability if they enable OpenSSL's internal CRL checking
5235 which is off by default. Applications which use their own custom CRL
5236 checking (such as Apache) are not affected.
5240 <issue public="20110906">
5241 <cve name="2011-3210"/>
5242 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5243 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5244 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5245 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5246 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5247 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5248 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5249 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5250 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5251 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5252 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5253 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5254 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5255 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5256 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5257 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5258 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5259 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5260 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5261 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5262 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5263 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5264 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5265 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5266 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e" date="20110906"/>
5267 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20110906.txt"/>
5268 <reported source="Adam Langley"/>
5270 OpenSSL server code for ephemeral ECDH ciphersuites is not
5271 thread-safe, and furthermore can crash if a client violates the
5272 protocol by sending handshake messages in incorrect order. Only
5273 server-side applications that specifically support ephemeral ECDH
5274 ciphersuites are affected, and only if ephemeral ECDH ciphersuites are
5275 enabled in the configuration.
5279 <issue public="20120104">
5280 <cve name="2011-4108"/>
5281 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5282 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5283 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5284 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5285 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5286 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5287 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5288 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5289 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5290 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5291 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5292 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5293 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5294 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5295 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5296 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5297 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5298 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5299 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5300 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5301 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5302 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5303 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5304 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5305 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5306 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
5307 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
5308 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
5309 <reported source="Nadhem Alfardan and Kenny Paterson"/>
5311 OpenSSL was susceptable an extension of the
5312 Vaudenay padding oracle attack on CBC mode encryption which enables an
5313 efficient plaintext recovery attack against the OpenSSL implementation
5314 of DTLS by exploiting timing differences arising during
5315 decryption processing.
5319 <issue public="20120104">
5320 <cve name="2011-4109"/>
5321 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5322 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5323 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5324 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5325 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5326 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5327 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5328 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5329 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5330 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5331 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5332 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5333 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5334 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5335 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5336 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5337 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5338 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5339 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5340 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
5341 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
5342 <reported source="Ben Laurie"/>
5344 If X509_V_FLAG_POLICY_CHECK is set in OpenSSL 0.9.8, then a policy
5345 check failure can lead to a double-free. The bug does not occur
5346 unless this flag is set. Users of OpenSSL 1.0.0 are not affected
5350 <issue public="20120104">
5351 <cve name="2011-4576"/>
5352 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5353 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5354 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5355 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5356 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5357 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5358 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5359 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5360 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5361 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5362 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5363 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5364 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5365 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5366 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5367 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5368 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5369 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5370 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5371 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5372 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5373 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5374 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5375 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5376 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5377 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
5378 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
5379 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
5380 <reported source="Adam Langley"/>
5382 OpenSSL failed to clear the bytes used as
5383 block cipher padding in SSL 3.0 records which could leak
5384 the contents of memory in some circumstances.
5388 <issue public="20120104">
5389 <cve name="2011-4577"/>
5390 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5391 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5392 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5393 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5394 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5395 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5396 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5397 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5398 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5399 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5400 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5401 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5402 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5403 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5404 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5405 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5406 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5407 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5408 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5409 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5410 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5411 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5412 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5413 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5414 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5415 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
5416 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
5417 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
5418 <reported source="Andrew Chi"/>
5420 RFC 3779 data can be included in certificates, and if it is malformed,
5421 may trigger an assertion failure. This could be used in a
5422 denial-of-service attack. Builds of OpenSSL are only vulnerable if configured with
5423 "enable-rfc3779", which is not a default.
5427 <issue public="20120104">
5428 <cve name="2011-4619"/>
5429 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5430 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5431 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5432 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5433 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5434 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5435 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5436 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5437 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5438 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5439 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5440 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5441 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5442 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5443 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5444 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5445 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5446 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5447 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5448 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5449 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5450 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5451 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5452 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5453 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5454 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
5455 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
5456 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
5457 <reported source="George Kadianakis"/>
5459 Support for handshake restarts for server gated cryptograpy (SGC) can
5460 be used in a denial-of-service attack.
5464 <issue public="20120104">
5465 <cve name="2012-0027"/>
5466 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5467 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5468 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5469 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5470 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5471 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5472 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
5473 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
5474 <reported source="Andrey Kulikov"/>
5476 A malicious TLS client can send an invalid set of GOST parameters
5477 which will cause the server to crash due to lack of error checking.
5478 This could be used in a denial-of-service attack.
5479 Only users of the OpenSSL GOST ENGINE are affected by this bug.
5483 <issue public="20120104">
5484 <cve name="2012-0050"/>
5485 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5486 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5487 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g" date="20120118"/>
5488 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t" date="20120118"/>
5489 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120118.txt"/>
5490 <reported source="Antonio Martin"/>
5492 A flaw in the fix to CVE-2011-4108 can be exploited in a denial of
5493 service attack. Only DTLS applications are affected.
5497 <issue public="20120312">
5498 <cve name="2012-0884"/>
5499 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5500 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5501 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5502 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5503 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5504 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5505 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5506 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5507 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5508 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5509 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5510 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5511 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5512 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5513 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5514 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5515 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5516 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5517 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5518 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5519 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5520 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5521 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5522 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5523 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5524 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5525 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5526 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5527 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5528 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0h" date="20120312"/>
5529 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u" date="20120312"/>
5530 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120312.txt"/>
5531 <reported source="Ivan Nestlerode"/>
5533 A weakness in the OpenSSL CMS and PKCS #7 code can be exploited
5534 using Bleichenbacher's attack on PKCS #1 v1.5 RSA padding
5535 also known as the million message attack (MMA).
5536 Only users of CMS, PKCS #7, or S/MIME decryption operations are affected,
5537 SSL/TLS applications are not affected by this issue.
5542 <issue public="20110208">
5543 <cve name="2011-0014"/>
5544 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5545 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5546 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5547 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5548 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5549 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5550 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5551 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5552 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5553 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5554 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5555 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5556 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5557 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5558 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d" date="20110208"/>
5559 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r" date="20110208"/>
5560 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20110208.txt"/>
5561 <reported source="Neel Mehta"/>
5563 A buffer over-read flaw was discovered in the way OpenSSL parsed the
5564 Certificate Status Request TLS extensions in ClientHello TLS handshake
5565 messages. A remote attacker could possibly use this flaw to crash an SSL
5566 server using the affected OpenSSL functionality.
5570 <issue public="20120424">
5571 <cve name="2012-2131"/>
5572 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
5573 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w" date="20120424"/>
5574 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120424.txt"/>
5575 <reported source="Red Hat"/>
5577 It was discovered that the fix for CVE-2012-2110 released on 19 Apr
5578 2012 was not sufficient to correct the issue for OpenSSL 0.9.8. This
5579 issue only affects OpenSSL 0.9.8v. OpenSSL 1.0.1a and 1.0.0i already
5580 contain a patch sufficient to correct CVE-2012-2110.
5585 <issue public="20120419">
5586 <cve name="2012-2110"/>
5587 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5588 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5589 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5590 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5591 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5592 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5593 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5594 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5595 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5596 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5597 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5598 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5599 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5600 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5601 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5602 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5603 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5604 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5605 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
5609 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5610 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5611 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5612 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5613 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5614 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5615 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5616 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5617 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5618 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a" date="20120419"/>
5619 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i" date="20120419"/>
5620 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v" date="20120419"/>
5621 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120419.txt"/>
5622 <reported source="Tavis Ormandy"/>
5624 Multiple numeric conversion errors, leading to a buffer overflow, were
5625 found in the way OpenSSL parsed ASN.1 (Abstract Syntax Notation One) data
5626 from BIO (OpenSSL's I/O abstraction) inputs. Specially-crafted DER
5627 (Distinguished Encoding Rules) encoded data read from a file or other BIO
5628 input could cause an application using the OpenSSL library to crash or,
5629 potentially, execute arbitrary code.
5633 <issue public="20120510">
5634 <cve name="2012-2333"/>
5635 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5636 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5637 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5638 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5639 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5640 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5641 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5642 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5643 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5644 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5645 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5646 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5647 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5648 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5649 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5650 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5651 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5652 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5653 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5654 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5655 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5656 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
5657 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
5658 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
5659 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5660 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5661 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5662 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5663 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5664 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5665 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5666 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5667 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
5668 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5669 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5670 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5671 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c" date="20120510"/>
5672 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j" date="20120510"/>
5673 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x" date="20120510"/>
5674 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120510.txt"/>
5675 <reported source="Codenomicon"/>
5677 An integer underflow flaw, leading to a buffer over-read, was found in
5678 the way OpenSSL handled TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, and DTLS (Datagram Transport
5679 Layer Security) application data record lengths when using a block
5680 cipher in CBC (cipher-block chaining) mode. A malicious TLS 1.1, TLS
5681 1.2, or DTLS client or server could use this flaw to crash its connection
5686 <issue public="20130204">
5687 <cve name="2013-0169"/>
5688 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5689 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5690 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5691 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5692 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5693 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5694 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5695 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5698 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5699 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5700 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5701 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5702 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5703 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5704 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5705 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5706 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5707 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5708 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5709 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
5710 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
5711 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
5712 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
5713 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5714 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5715 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5716 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5717 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5718 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5719 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5720 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5721 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
5722 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
5723 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5724 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5725 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5726 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5727 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d" date="20130205"/>
5728 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k" date="20130205"/>
5729 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y" date="20130205"/>
5730 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20130205.txt"/>
5731 <reported source="Nadhem J. AlFardan and Kenneth G. Paterson of the Information Security Group Royal Holloway, University of London"/>
5733 A weakness in the handling of CBC ciphersuites in SSL, TLS and DTLS which could
5734 lead to plaintext recovery by exploiting timing differences
5735 arising during MAC processing.
5739 <issue public="20130205">
5740 <cve name="2012-2686"/>
5741 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5742 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5743 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5744 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5745 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d" date="20130205"/>
5746 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20130205.txt"/>
5747 <reported source="Adam Langley and Wolfgang Ettlinger"/>
5749 A flaw in the OpenSSL handling of CBC ciphersuites in TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 on
5750 AES-NI supporting platforms can be exploited in a DoS attack.
5754 <issue public="20130205">
5755 <cve name="2013-0166"/>
5756 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5757 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5758 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5759 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5760 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5761 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5762 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5763 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5764 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5765 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5766 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5767 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5768 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5769 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5770 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5771 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5772 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5773 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5774 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5775 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5776 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5777 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
5778 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
5779 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
5780 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
5781 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5782 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5783 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5784 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5785 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5786 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5787 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5788 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5789 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
5790 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
5791 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5792 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5793 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5794 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5795 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d" date="20130205"/>
5796 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k" date="20130205"/>
5797 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y" date="20130205"/>
5798 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20130205.txt"/>
5799 <reported source="Stephen Henson"/>
5801 A flaw in the OpenSSL handling of OCSP response verification can be exploited in
5802 a denial of service attack.
5806 <issue public="20131213">
5807 <cve name="2013-6450"/>
5808 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5809 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5810 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5811 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5812 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5813 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5814 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5815 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5816 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
5817 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
5818 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
5819 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5820 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5821 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5822 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5823 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
5824 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
5825 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f" date="20140106">
5826 <git hash="3462896"/>
5828 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l" date="20140106"/>
5829 <reported source="Dmitry Sobinov"/>
5831 A flaw in DTLS handling can cause an application using OpenSSL and DTLS to crash.
5832 This is not a vulnerability for OpenSSL prior to 1.0.0.
5836 <issue public="20131214">
5837 <cve name="2013-6449"/>
5838 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5839 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5840 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5841 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5842 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
5843 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
5844 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f" date="20140106">
5845 <git hash="ca98926"/>
5847 <reported source="Ron Barber"/>
5849 A flaw in OpenSSL can cause an application using OpenSSL to crash when using TLS version 1.2.
5850 This issue only affected OpenSSL 1.0.1 versions.
5854 <issue public="20140106">
5855 <cve name="2013-4353"/>
5856 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5857 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5858 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5859 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5860 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
5861 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
5862 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f" date="20140106">
5863 <git hash="197e0ea817ad64820789d86711d55ff50d71f631"/>
5865 <reported source="Anton Johansson"/>
5867 A carefully crafted invalid TLS handshake could crash OpenSSL with a NULL pointer exception. A malicious
5868 server could use this flaw to crash a connecting client. This issue only affected OpenSSL 1.0.1 versions.
5872 <issue public="20140214">
5873 <cve name="2014-0076"/>
5874 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5875 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5876 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5877 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5878 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5879 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5880 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5881 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5882 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5883 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5884 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5885 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5886 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5887 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5888 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5889 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5890 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5891 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5892 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5893 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5894 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5895 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
5896 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
5897 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
5898 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
5899 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
5900 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5901 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5902 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5903 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5904 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5905 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5906 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5907 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5908 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
5909 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
5910 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
5911 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
5912 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5913 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5914 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5915 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5916 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
5917 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
5918 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
5919 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g" date="20140409">
5920 <git hash="4b7a4ba29cafa432fc4266fe6e59e60bc1c96332"/>
5922 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140312">
5923 <git hash="2198be3483259de374f91e57d247d0fc667aef29"/>
5925 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
5927 <reported source="Yuval Yarom and Naomi Benger"/>
5929 Fix for the attack described in the paper "Recovering OpenSSL
5930 ECDSA Nonces Using the FLUSH+RELOAD Cache Side-channel Attack"
5934 <issue public="20140407">
5935 <cve name="2014-0160"/>
5936 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5937 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5938 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5939 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5940 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
5941 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
5942 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
5943 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g" date="20140409">
5945 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140407.txt"/>
5946 <reported source="Neel Mehta"/>
5948 A missing bounds check in the handling of the TLS heartbeat extension can be
5949 used to reveal up to 64kB of memory to a connected client or server (a.k.a. Heartbleed). This
5950 issue did not affect versions of OpenSSL prior to 1.0.1.
5954 <issue public="20140605">
5955 <cve name="2014-0224"/>
5956 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5957 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5958 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5959 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5960 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5961 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5962 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5963 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5964 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5965 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5966 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5967 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5968 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5969 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5970 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5971 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5972 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5973 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5974 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5975 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
5976 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
5977 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
5978 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
5979 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
5980 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
5981 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
5982 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5983 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5984 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5985 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5986 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5987 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
5988 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
5989 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
5990 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
5991 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
5992 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
5993 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
5994 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
5995 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
5996 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
5997 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
5998 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
5999 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6000 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6001 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6002 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6004 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6006 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6009 An attacker can force the use of weak
6010 keying material in OpenSSL SSL/TLS clients and servers. This can be exploited
6011 by a Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack where the attacker can decrypt and
6012 modify traffic from the attacked client and server.
6014 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6015 <reported source="KIKUCHI Masashi (Lepidum Co. Ltd.)"/>
6018 <issue public="20140605">
6019 <cve name="2014-0221"/>
6020 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6021 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6022 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6023 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6024 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6025 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6026 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6027 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6028 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6029 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6030 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6031 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6032 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6033 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6034 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6035 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6036 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6037 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6038 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6039 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6040 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6041 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6042 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6043 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6044 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6045 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6046 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6047 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6048 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6049 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6050 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6051 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6052 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6053 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6054 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6055 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6056 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6057 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6058 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6059 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6060 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6061 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6062 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6063 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6064 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6065 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6066 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6068 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6070 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6072 <description>By sending an invalid DTLS handshake to an OpenSSL DTLS client the code can be made to recurse eventually crashing in a DoS attack. Only applications using OpenSSL as a DTLS client are affected.</description>
6073 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6074 <reported source="Imre Rad (Search-Lab Ltd.)"/>
6077 <issue public="20140605">
6078 <cve name="2014-0195"/>
6079 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6080 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6081 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6082 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6083 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6084 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6085 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6086 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6087 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6088 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6089 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6090 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6091 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6092 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6093 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6094 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6095 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6096 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6097 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6098 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6099 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6100 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6101 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6102 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6103 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6104 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6105 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6106 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6107 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6108 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6109 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6110 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6112 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6114 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6116 <description>A buffer overrun attack can be triggered by sending invalid DTLS fragments
6117 to an OpenSSL DTLS client or server. This is potentially exploitable to
6118 run arbitrary code on a vulnerable client or server. Only applications using OpenSSL as a DTLS client or server affected.
6120 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6121 <reported source="Jüri Aedla"/>
6124 <issue public="20140421">
6125 <cve name="2014-0198"/>
6126 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6127 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6128 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6129 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6130 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6131 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6132 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6133 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6134 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6135 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6136 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6137 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6138 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6139 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6140 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6141 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6142 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6143 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6144 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6145 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6146 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6148 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6150 <description>A flaw in the do_ssl3_write function can allow remote attackers to
6151 cause a denial of service via a NULL pointer dereference. This flaw
6152 only affects OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 where SSL_MODE_RELEASE_BUFFERS is
6153 enabled, which is not the default and not common.</description>
6154 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6157 <issue public="20140408">
6158 <cve name="2010-5298"/>
6159 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6160 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6161 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6162 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6163 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6164 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6165 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6166 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6167 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6168 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6169 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6170 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6171 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6172 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6173 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6174 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6175 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6176 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6177 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6178 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6179 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6181 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6183 <description>A race condition in the ssl3_read_bytes function can allow remote
6184 attackers to inject data across sessions or cause a denial of service.
6185 This flaw only affects multithreaded applications using OpenSSL 1.0.0
6186 and 1.0.1, where SSL_MODE_RELEASE_BUFFERS is enabled, which is not the
6187 default and not common.</description>
6188 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6191 <issue public="20140530">
6192 <cve name="2014-3470"/>
6193 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6194 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6195 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6196 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6197 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6198 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6199 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6200 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6201 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6202 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6203 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6204 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6205 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6206 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6207 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6208 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6209 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6210 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6211 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6212 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6213 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6214 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6215 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6216 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6217 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6218 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6219 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6220 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6221 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6222 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6223 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6224 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6225 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6226 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6227 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6228 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6229 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6230 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6231 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6232 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6233 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6234 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6235 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6236 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6237 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6238 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6239 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6241 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6243 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6245 <description>OpenSSL TLS clients enabling anonymous ECDH ciphersuites are subject to a
6246 denial of service attack.</description>
6247 <reported source="Felix Gröbert and Ivan Fratrić (Google)"/>
6248 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
projects / openssl-web.git / blob