1 <!-- All security issues affecting OpenSSL since the release of:
8 <!-- The updated attribute should be the same as the first public issue,
9 unless an old entry was updated. -->
10 <security updated="20181112">
11 <issue public="20181102">
12 <impact severity="Low"/>
13 <cve name="2018-5407"/>
14 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
15 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
16 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
17 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
18 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
19 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
20 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
21 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
22 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h"/>
23 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
24 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
25 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
26 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
27 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
28 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
29 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
30 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
31 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
32 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
33 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
34 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
35 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
36 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
37 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n"/>
38 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2o"/>
39 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2p"/>
40 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0i" date="20180814">
41 <git hash="aab7c770353b1dc4ba045938c8fb446dd1c4531e"/>
43 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2q" date="20181112">
44 <git hash="b18162a7c9bbfb57112459a4d6631fa258fd8c0cq"/>
46 <problemtype>Side Channel Attack</problemtype>
47 <title>Microarchitecture timing vulnerability in ECC scalar multiplication</title>
49 OpenSSL ECC scalar multiplication, used in e.g. ECDSA and ECDH, has been shown
50 to be vulnerable to a microarchitecture timing side channel attack. An attacker
51 with sufficient access to mount local timing attacks during ECDSA signature
52 generation could recover the private key.
54 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20181112.txt"/>
55 <reported source="Alejandro Cabrera Aldaya, Billy Brumley, Sohaib ul Hassan, Cesar Pereida Garcia and Nicola Tuveri"/>
57 <issue public="20181030">
58 <impact severity="Low"/>
59 <cve name="2018-0734"/>
60 <affects base="1.1.1" version="1.1.1"/>
61 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
62 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
63 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
64 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
65 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
66 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
67 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
68 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
69 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h"/>
70 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0i"/>
71 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
72 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
73 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
74 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
75 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
76 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
77 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
78 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
79 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
80 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
81 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
82 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
83 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
84 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
85 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n"/>
86 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2o"/>
87 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2p"/>
88 <fixed base="1.1.1" version="1.1.1a" date="20181029">
89 <git hash="8abfe72e8c1de1b95f50aa0d9134803b4d00070f"/>
91 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0j" date="20181029">
92 <git hash="ef11e19d1365eea2b1851e6f540a0bf365d303e7"/>
94 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2q" date="20181030">
95 <git hash="43e6a58d4991a451daf4891ff05a48735df871ac"/>
97 <problemtype>Constant time issue</problemtype>
98 <title>Timing attack against DSA</title>
100 The OpenSSL DSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable
101 to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations
102 in the signing algorithm to recover the private key.
104 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20181030.txt"/>
105 <reported source="Samuel Weiser"/>
107 <issue public="20181029">
108 <impact severity="Low"/>
109 <cve name="2018-0735"/>
110 <affects base="1.1.1" version="1.1.1"/>
111 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
112 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
113 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
114 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
115 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
116 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
117 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
118 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
119 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h"/>
120 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0i"/>
121 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0j" date="20181029">
122 <git hash="56fb454d281a023b3f950d969693553d3f3ceea1"/>
124 <fixed base="1.1.1" version="1.1.1a" date="20181029">
125 <git hash="b1d6d55ece1c26fa2829e2b819b038d7b6d692b4"/>
127 <problemtype>Constant time issue</problemtype>
128 <title>Timing attack against ECDSA signature generation</title>
130 The OpenSSL ECDSA signature algorithm has been shown to be
131 vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use
132 variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key.
134 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20181029.txt"/>
135 <reported source="Samuel Weiser"/>
137 <issue public="20180612">
138 <impact severity="Low"/>
139 <cve name="2018-0732"/>
140 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
141 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
142 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
143 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
144 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
145 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
146 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
147 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
148 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h"/>
149 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
150 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
151 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
152 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
153 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
154 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
155 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
156 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
157 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
158 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
159 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
160 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
161 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
162 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
163 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n"/>
164 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2o"/>
165 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0i" date="20180814">
166 <git hash="ea7abeeabf92b7aca160bdd0208636d4da69f4f4"/>
168 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2p" date="20180814">
169 <git hash="3984ef0b72831da8b3ece4745cac4f8575b19098"/>
171 <problemtype>Client side Denial of Service</problemtype>
172 <title>Client DoS due to large DH parameter</title>
174 During key agreement in a TLS handshake using a DH(E) based ciphersuite
175 a malicious server can send a very large prime value to the client. This
176 will cause the client to spend an unreasonably long period of time
177 generating a key for this prime resulting in a hang until the client has
178 finished. This could be exploited in a Denial Of Service attack.
180 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20180612.txt"/>
181 <reported source="Guido Vranken"/>
183 <issue public="20180416">
184 <impact severity="Low"/>
185 <cve name="2018-0737"/>
186 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
187 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
188 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
189 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
190 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
191 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
192 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
193 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
194 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h"/>
195 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
196 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
197 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
198 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
199 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
200 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
201 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
202 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
203 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
204 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
205 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
206 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
207 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
208 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
209 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n"/>
210 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2o"/>
211 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0i" date="20180814">
212 <git hash="6939eab03a6e23d2bd2c3f5e34fe1d48e542e787"/>
214 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2p" date="20180814">
215 <git hash="349a41da1ad88ad87825414752a8ff5fdd6a6c3f"/>
217 <problemtype>Constant time issue</problemtype>
218 <title>Cache timing vulnerability in RSA Key Generation</title>
220 The OpenSSL RSA Key generation algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable
221 to a cache timing side channel attack. An attacker with sufficient access
222 to mount cache timing attacks during the RSA key generation process could
223 recover the private key.
225 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20180416.txt"/>
226 <reported source="Alejandro Cabrera Aldaya, Billy Brumley, Cesar Pereida Garcia and Luis Manuel Alvarez Tapia"/>
228 <issue public="20180327">
229 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
230 <cve name="2018-0739"/>
231 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
232 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
233 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
234 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
235 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
236 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
237 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
238 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
239 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
240 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
241 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
242 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
243 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
244 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
245 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
246 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
247 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
248 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
249 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
250 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
251 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n"/>
252 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h" date="20180327">
253 <git hash="2ac4c6f7b2b2af20c0e2b0ba05367e454cd11b33"/>
255 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2o" date="20180327">
256 <git hash="9310d45087ae546e27e61ddf8f6367f29848220d"/>
258 <problemtype>Stack overflow</problemtype>
259 <title>Constructed ASN.1 types with a recursive definition could exceed the stack</title>
261 Constructed ASN.1 types with a recursive definition (such as can be found
262 in PKCS7) could eventually exceed the stack given malicious input with
263 excessive recursion. This could result in a Denial Of Service attack.
264 There are no such structures used within SSL/TLS that come from untrusted
265 sources so this is considered safe.
267 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20180327.txt"/>
268 <reported source="OSS-fuzz"/>
270 <issue public="20180327">
271 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
272 <cve name="2018-0733"/>
273 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
274 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
275 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
276 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
277 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
278 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
279 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
280 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
281 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h" date="20180327">
282 <git hash="56d5a4bfcaf37fa420aef2bb881aa55e61cf5f2f"/>
284 <problemtype>Message forgery</problemtype>
285 <title>Incorrect CRYPTO_memcmp on HP-UX PA-RISC</title>
287 Because of an implementation bug the PA-RISC CRYPTO_memcmp function is
288 effectively reduced to only comparing the least significant bit of each
289 byte. This allows an attacker to forge messages that would be considered
290 as authenticated in an amount of tries lower than that guaranteed by the
291 security claims of the scheme. The module can only be compiled by the
292 HP-UX assembler, so that only HP-UX PA-RISC targets are affected.
294 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20180327.txt"/>
295 <reported source="Peter Waltenberg (IBM)"/>
297 <issue public="20171207">
298 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
299 <cve name="2017-3737"/>
300 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
301 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
302 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
303 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
304 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
305 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
306 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
307 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
308 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
309 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
310 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
311 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
312 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n" date="20171207">
313 <git hash="898fb884b706aaeb283de4812340bb0bde8476dc"/>
315 <problemtype>Unauthenticated read/unencrypted write</problemtype>
316 <title>Read/write after SSL object in error state</title>
318 OpenSSL 1.0.2 (starting from version 1.0.2b) introduced an "error state"
319 mechanism. The intent was that if a fatal error occurred during a handshake then
320 OpenSSL would move into the error state and would immediately fail if you
321 attempted to continue the handshake. This works as designed for the explicit
322 handshake functions (SSL_do_handshake(), SSL_accept() and SSL_connect()),
323 however due to a bug it does not work correctly if SSL_read() or SSL_write() is
324 called directly. In that scenario, if the handshake fails then a fatal error
325 will be returned in the initial function call. If SSL_read()/SSL_write() is
326 subsequently called by the application for the same SSL object then it will
327 succeed and the data is passed without being decrypted/encrypted directly from
328 the SSL/TLS record layer.
330 In order to exploit this issue an application bug would have to be present that
331 resulted in a call to SSL_read()/SSL_write() being issued after having already
332 received a fatal error.
334 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20171207.txt"/>
335 <reported source="David Benjamin (Google)"/>
337 <issue public="20171207">
338 <impact severity="Low"/>
339 <cve name="2017-3738"/>
340 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
341 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
342 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
343 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
344 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
345 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
346 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
347 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g"/>
348 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
349 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
350 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
351 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
352 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
353 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
354 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
355 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
356 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
357 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
358 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
359 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
360 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
361 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m"/>
362 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2n" date="20171207">
363 <git hash="ca51bafc1a88d8b8348f5fd97adc5d6ca93f8e76"/>
365 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0h" date="20180327">
366 <git hash="e502cc86df9dafded1694fceb3228ee34d11c11a"/>
368 <problemtype>carry-propagating bug</problemtype>
369 <title>bn_sqrx8x_internal carry bug on x86_64</title>
371 There is an overflow bug in the AVX2 Montgomery multiplication procedure
372 used in exponentiation with 1024-bit moduli. No EC algorithms are affected.
373 Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect
374 would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks
375 against DH1024 are considered just feasible, because most of the work
376 necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline.
377 The amount of resources required for such an attack would be significant.
378 However, for an attack on TLS to be meaningful, the server would have to share
379 the DH1024 private key among multiple clients, which is no longer an option
382 This only affects processors that support the AVX2 but not ADX extensions
383 like Intel Haswell (4th generation).
385 Note: The impact from this issue is similar to CVE-2017-3736, CVE-2017-3732
388 Due to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing a new release of
389 OpenSSL 1.1.0 at this time. The fix will be included in OpenSSL 1.1.0h when it
390 becomes available. The fix is also available in commit e502cc86d in the OpenSSL
393 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20171207.txt"/>
394 <reported source="David Benjamin (Google)/Google OSS-Fuzz"/>
396 <issue public="20171102">
397 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
398 <cve name="2017-3736"/>
399 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
400 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
401 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
402 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
403 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
404 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
405 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
406 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
407 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
408 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
409 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
410 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
411 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
412 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
413 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
414 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
415 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
416 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
417 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
418 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
419 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m" date="20171102">
420 <git hash="38d600147331d36e74174ebbd4008b63188b321b"/>
422 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g" date="20171102">
423 <git hash="4443cf7aa0099e5ce615c18cee249fff77fb0871"/>
425 <problemtype>carry-propagating bug</problemtype>
426 <title>bn_sqrx8x_internal carry bug on x86_64</title>
428 There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure. No
429 EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA
430 as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not
431 believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very
432 difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information
433 about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources
434 required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only
435 accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker would
436 additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target
437 private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private
438 key that is shared between multiple clients.
440 This only affects processors that support the BMI1, BMI2 and ADX extensions like
441 Intel Broadwell (5th generation) and later or AMD Ryzen.
443 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20171102.txt"/>
444 <reported source="Google OSS-Fuzz"/>
446 <issue public="20170828">
447 <impact severity="Low"/>
448 <cve name="2017-3735"/>
449 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
450 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
451 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
452 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
453 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
454 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e"/>
455 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0f"/>
456 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
457 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
458 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
459 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
460 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
461 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
462 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
463 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
464 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
465 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
466 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
467 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k"/>
468 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2l"/>
469 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2m" date="20171102">
470 <git hash="31c8b265591a0aaa462a1f3eb5770661aaac67db"/>
472 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0g" date="20171102">
473 <git hash="068b963bb7afc57f5bdd723de0dd15e7795d5822"/>
475 <problemtype>out-of-bounds read</problemtype>
476 <title>Possible Overread in parsing X.509 IPAdressFamily</title>
478 While parsing an IPAdressFamily extension in an X.509 certificate,
479 it is possible to do a one-byte overread. This would result in
480 an incorrect text display of the certificate.
482 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170828.txt"/>
483 <reported source="Google OSS-Fuzz"/>
485 <issue public="20170216">
486 <impact severity="High"/>
487 <cve name="2017-3733"/>
488 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
489 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
490 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
491 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
492 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d"/>
493 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0e" date="20170216">
494 <git hash="4ad93618d26a3ea23d36ad5498ff4f59eff3a4d2"/>
496 <problemtype>protocol error</problemtype>
497 <title>Encrypt-Then-Mac renegotiation crash</title>
499 During a renegotiation handshake if the Encrypt-Then-Mac extension is
500 negotiated where it was not in the original handshake (or vice-versa) then
501 this can cause OpenSSL to crash (dependent on ciphersuite). Both clients
502 and servers are affected.
504 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170216.txt"/>
505 <reported source="Joe Orton (Red Hat)" />
507 <issue public="20170126">
508 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
509 <cve name="2017-3731"/>
510 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
511 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
512 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
513 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
514 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
515 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
516 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
517 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
518 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
519 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
520 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
521 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
522 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
523 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
524 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
525 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d" date="20170126">
526 <git hash="00d965474b22b54e4275232bc71ee0c699c5cd21"/>
528 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k" date="20170126">
529 <git hash="51d009043670a627d6abe66894126851cf3690e9"/>
531 <problemtype>out-of-bounds read</problemtype>
532 <title>Truncated packet could crash via OOB read</title>
534 If an SSL/TLS server or client is running on a 32-bit host, and a specific
535 cipher is being used, then a truncated packet can cause that server or
536 client to perform an out-of-bounds read, usually resulting in a crash.
538 For OpenSSL 1.1.0, the crash can be triggered when using
539 CHACHA20/POLY1305; users should upgrade to 1.1.0d.
541 For Openssl 1.0.2, the crash can be triggered when using RC4-MD5; users
542 who have not disabled that algorithm should update to 1.0.2k
544 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170126.txt"/>
545 <reported source="Robert Święcki of Google" />
547 <issue public="20170126">
548 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
549 <cve name="2017-3730"/>
550 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
551 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
552 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
553 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
554 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d" date="20170126">
555 <git hash="efbe126e3ebb9123ac9d058aa2bb044261342aaa"/>
557 <problemtype>NULL pointer deference</problemtype>
558 <title>Bad (EC)DHE parameters cause a client crash</title>
560 If a malicious server supplies bad parameters for a DHE or ECDHE key
561 exchange then this can result in the client attempting to dereference a
562 NULL pointer leading to a client crash. This could be exploited in a
563 Denial of Service attack.
565 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170126.txt"/>
566 <reported source="Guido Vranken" />
568 <issue public="20170126">
569 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
570 <cve name="2017-3732"/>
571 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
572 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
573 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
574 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c"/>
575 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
576 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
577 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
578 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
579 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
580 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
581 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
582 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
583 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
584 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
585 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
586 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0d" date="20170126">
587 <git hash="a59b90bf491410f1f2bc4540cc21f1980fd14c5b"/>
589 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k" date="20170126">
590 <git hash="760d04342a495ee86bf5adc71a91d126af64397f"/>
592 <problemtype>carry-propagating bug</problemtype>
593 <title>BN_mod_exp may produce incorrect results on x86_64</title>
595 There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring
596 procedure. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks
597 against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to
598 perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered
599 just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary
600 to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The
601 amount of resources required for such an attack would be very significant
602 and likely only accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker
603 would additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the
604 target private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a
605 private key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can
606 occur by default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites. Note: This
607 issue is very similar to CVE-2015-3193 but must be treated as a separate
610 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20170126.txt"/>
611 <reported source="OSS-Fuzz project" />
613 <issue public="20161110">
614 <impact severity="High"/>
615 <cve name="2016-7054"/>
616 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
617 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
618 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
619 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c" date="20161110">
620 <git hash="99d97842ddb5fbbbfb5e9820a64ebd19afe569f6"/>
622 <problemtype>protocol error</problemtype>
623 <title>ChaCha20/Poly1305 heap-buffer-overflow</title>
625 TLS connections using *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 ciphersuites are susceptible to
626 a DoS attack by corrupting larger payloads. This can result in an OpenSSL
627 crash. This issue is not considered to be exploitable beyond a DoS.
629 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20161110.txt"/>
630 <reported source="Robert Święcki (Google Security Team)" date="20160925"/>
632 <issue public="20161110">
633 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
634 <cve name="2016-7053"/>
635 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
636 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
637 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
638 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c" date="20161110">
639 <git hash="610b66267e41a32805ab54cbc580c5a6d5826cb4"/>
641 <problemtype>NULL pointer deference</problemtype>
642 <title>CMS Null dereference</title>
644 Applications parsing invalid CMS structures can crash with a NULL pointer
645 dereference. This is caused by a bug in the handling of the ASN.1 CHOICE
646 type in OpenSSL 1.1.0 which can result in a NULL value being passed to the
647 structure callback if an attempt is made to free certain invalid
648 encodings. Only CHOICE structures using a callback which do not handle
649 NULL value are affected.
651 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20161110.txt"/>
652 <reported source="Tyler Nighswander (ForAllSecure)" date="20161012"/>
654 <issue public="20161110">
655 <impact severity="Low"/>
656 <cve name="2016-7055"/>
657 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
658 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
659 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b"/>
660 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
661 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
662 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
663 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
664 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
665 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
666 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
667 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
668 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
669 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
670 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j"/>
671 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0c" date="20161110">
672 <git hash="2a7dd548a6f5d6f7f84a89c98323b70a2822406e"/>
674 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2k" date="20170126">
675 <git hash="57c4b9f6a2f800b41ce2836986fe33640f6c3f8a"/>
677 <problemtype>carry propagating bug</problemtype>
678 <title>Montgomery multiplication may produce incorrect results</title>
680 There is a carry propagating bug in the Broadwell-specific Montgomery
681 multiplication procedure that handles input lengths divisible by, but
682 longer than 256 bits. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA, DSA
683 and DH private keys are impossible. This is because the subroutine in
684 question is not used in operations with the private key itself and an
685 input of the attacker's direct choice. Otherwise the bug can manifest
686 itself as transient authentication and key negotiation failures or
687 reproducible erroneous outcome of public-key operations with specially
688 crafted input. Among EC algorithms only Brainpool P-512 curves are
689 affected and one presumably can attack ECDH key negotiation. Impact was
690 not analyzed in detail, because pre-requisites for attack are considered
691 unlikely. Namely multiple clients have to choose the curve in question and
692 the server has to share the private key among them, neither of which is
693 default behaviour. Even then only clients that chose the curve will be
696 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20161110.txt"/>
697 <reported source="Publicly reported" />
699 <issue public="20160926">
700 <impact severity="Critical"/>
701 <cve name="2016-6309"/>
702 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a"/>
703 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0b" date="20160926">
704 <git hash="acacbfa7565c78d2273c0b2a2e5e803f44afefeb"/>
707 <problemtype>write to free</problemtype>
709 This issue only affects OpenSSL 1.1.0a, released on 22nd September 2016.
711 The patch applied to address CVE-2016-6307 resulted in an issue where if a
712 message larger than approx 16k is received then the underlying buffer to store
713 the incoming message is reallocated and moved. Unfortunately a dangling pointer
714 to the old location is left which results in an attempt to write to the
715 previously freed location. This is likely to result in a crash, however it
716 could potentially lead to execution of arbitrary code.
718 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160926.txt"/>
719 <reported source="Robert Święcki (Google Security Team)" date="20160923"/>
721 <issue public="20160926">
722 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
723 <cve name="2016-7052"/>
724 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i"/>
725 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2j" date="20160926">
726 <git hash="6e629b5be45face20b4ca71c4fcbfed78b864a2e"/>
728 <problemtype>NULL pointer exception</problemtype>
730 This issue only affects OpenSSL 1.0.2i, released on 22nd September 2016.
732 A bug fix which included a CRL sanity check was added to OpenSSL 1.1.0
733 but was omitted from OpenSSL 1.0.2i. As a result any attempt to use
734 CRLs in OpenSSL 1.0.2i will crash with a null pointer exception.
736 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160926.txt"/>
737 <reported source="Bruce Stephens and Thomas Jakobi" date="20160922"/>
739 <issue public="20160922">
740 <impact severity="High"/>
741 <cve name="2016-6304"/>
742 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
743 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
744 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
745 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
746 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
747 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
748 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
749 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
750 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
751 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
752 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
753 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
754 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
755 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
756 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
757 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
758 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
759 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
760 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
761 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
762 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
763 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
764 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
765 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
766 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
767 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
768 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
769 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
770 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
771 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
772 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
773 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922">
774 <git hash="2c0d295e26306e15a92eb23a84a1802005c1c137"/>
776 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922">
777 <git hash="ea39b16b71e4e72a228a4535bd6d6a02c5edbc1f"/>
779 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922">
780 <git hash="a59ab1c4dd27a4c7c6e88f3c33747532fd144412"/>
783 <problemtype>memory leak</problemtype>
785 A malicious client can send an excessively large OCSP Status Request extension.
786 If that client continually requests renegotiation, sending a large OCSP Status
787 Request extension each time, then there will be unbounded memory growth on the
788 server. This will eventually lead to a Denial Of Service attack through memory
789 exhaustion. Servers with a default configuration are vulnerable even if they do
790 not support OCSP. Builds using the "no-ocsp" build time option are not affected.
792 Servers using OpenSSL versions prior to 1.0.1g are not vulnerable in a default
793 configuration, instead only if an application explicitly enables OCSP stapling
796 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
797 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160829"/>
799 <issue public="20160922">
800 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
801 <cve name="2016-6305"/>
802 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
803 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922">
804 <git hash="63658103d4441924f8dbfc517b99bb54758a98b9"/>
808 OpenSSL 1.1.0 SSL/TLS will hang during a call to SSL_peek() if the peer sends an
809 empty record. This could be exploited by a malicious peer in a Denial Of Service
812 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
813 <reported source="Alex Gaynor" date="20160910"/>
815 <issue public="20160824">
816 <impact severity="Low"/>
817 <cve name="2016-6303"/>
818 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
819 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
820 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
821 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
822 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
823 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
824 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
825 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
826 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
827 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
828 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
829 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
830 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
831 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
832 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
833 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
834 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
835 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
836 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
837 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
838 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
839 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
840 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
841 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
842 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
843 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
844 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
845 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
846 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
847 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
848 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922">
849 <git hash="2b4029e68fd7002d2307e6c3cde0f3784eef9c83"/>
851 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922">
852 <git hash="1027ad4f34c30b8585592764b9a670ba36888269"/>
856 An overflow can occur in MDC2_Update() either if called directly or
857 through the EVP_DigestUpdate() function using MDC2. If an attacker
858 is able to supply very large amounts of input data after a previous
859 call to EVP_EncryptUpdate() with a partial block then a length check
860 can overflow resulting in a heap corruption.
862 The amount of data needed is comparable to SIZE_MAX which is impractical
865 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
866 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160811"/>
868 <issue public="20160823">
869 <impact severity="Low"/>
870 <cve name="2016-6302"/>
871 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
872 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
873 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
874 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
875 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
876 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
877 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
878 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
879 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
880 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
881 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
882 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
883 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
884 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
885 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
886 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
887 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
888 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
889 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
890 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
891 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
892 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
893 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
894 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
895 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
896 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
897 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
898 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
899 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
900 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
901 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922">
902 <git hash="1bbe48ab149893a78bf99c8eb8895c928900a16f"/>
904 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922">
905 <git hash="baaabfd8fdcec04a691695fad9a664bea43202b6"/>
909 If a server uses SHA512 for TLS session ticket HMAC it is vulnerable to a
910 DoS attack where a malformed ticket will result in an OOB read which will
913 The use of SHA512 in TLS session tickets is comparatively rare as it requires
914 a custom server callback and ticket lookup mechanism.
916 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
917 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160819"/>
919 <issue public="20160816">
920 <impact severity="Low"/>
921 <cve name="2016-2182"/>
922 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
923 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
924 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
925 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
926 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
927 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
928 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
929 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
930 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
931 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
932 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
933 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
934 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
935 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
936 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
937 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
938 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
939 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
940 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
941 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
942 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
943 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
944 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
945 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
946 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
947 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
948 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
949 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
950 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
951 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
952 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
953 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
956 The function BN_bn2dec() does not check the return value of BN_div_word().
957 This can cause an OOB write if an application uses this function with an
958 overly large BIGNUM. This could be a problem if an overly large certificate
959 or CRL is printed out from an untrusted source. TLS is not affected because
960 record limits will reject an oversized certificate before it is parsed.
962 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
963 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160802"/>
965 <issue public="20160722">
966 <impact severity="Low"/>
967 <cve name="2016-2180"/>
968 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
969 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
970 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
971 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
972 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
973 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
974 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
975 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
976 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
977 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
978 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
979 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
980 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
981 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
982 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
983 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
984 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
985 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
986 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
987 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
988 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
989 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
990 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
991 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
992 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
993 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
994 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
995 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
996 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
997 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
998 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
999 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
1002 The function TS_OBJ_print_bio() misuses OBJ_obj2txt(): the return value is
1003 the total length the OID text representation would use and not the amount
1004 of data written. This will result in OOB reads when large OIDs are presented.
1006 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1007 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160721"/>
1009 <issue public="20160601">
1010 <impact severity="Low"/>
1011 <cve name="2016-2177"/>
1012 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1013 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1014 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1015 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1016 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1017 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1018 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1019 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1020 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1021 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1022 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1023 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1024 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1025 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1026 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1027 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1028 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1029 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1030 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1031 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1032 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
1033 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1034 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1035 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1036 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1037 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1038 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1039 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1040 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1041 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
1042 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
1043 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
1046 Avoid some undefined pointer arithmetic
1048 A common idiom in the codebase is to check limits in the following manner:
1049 "p + len > limit"
1051 Where "p" points to some malloc'd data of SIZE bytes and
1054 "len" here could be from some externally supplied data (e.g. from a TLS
1057 The rules of C pointer arithmetic are such that "p + len" is only well
1058 defined where len <= SIZE. Therefore the above idiom is actually
1059 undefined behaviour.
1061 For example this could cause problems if some malloc implementation
1062 provides an address for "p" such that "p + len" actually overflows for
1063 values of len that are too big and therefore p + len < limit.
1065 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1066 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160504"/>
1068 <issue public="20160607">
1069 <impact severity="Low"/>
1070 <cve name="2016-2178"/>
1071 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1072 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1073 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1074 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1075 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1076 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1077 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1078 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1079 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1080 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1081 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1082 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1083 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1084 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1085 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1086 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1087 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1088 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1089 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1090 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1091 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
1092 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1093 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1094 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1095 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1096 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1097 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1098 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1099 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1100 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
1101 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922"/>
1102 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922"/>
1105 Operations in the DSA signing algorithm should run in constant time in order to
1106 avoid side channel attacks. A flaw in the OpenSSL DSA implementation means that
1107 a non-constant time codepath is followed for certain operations. This has been
1108 demonstrated through a cache-timing attack to be sufficient for an attacker to
1109 recover the private DSA key.
1111 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1112 <reported source="César Pereida (Aalto University), Billy Brumley (Tampere University of Technology), and Yuval Yarom (The University of Adelaide and NICTA)" date="20160523"/>
1114 <issue public="20160822">
1115 <impact severity="Low"/>
1116 <cve name="2016-2179"/>
1117 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1118 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1119 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1120 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1121 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1122 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1123 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1124 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1125 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1126 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1127 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1128 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1129 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1130 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1131 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1132 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1133 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1134 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1135 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1136 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1137 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
1138 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1139 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1140 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1141 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1142 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1143 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1144 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1145 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1146 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
1147 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922">
1148 <git hash="00a4c1421407b6ac796688871b0a49a179c694d9"/>
1150 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922">
1151 <git hash="26f2c5774f117aea588e8f31fad38bcf14e83bec"/>
1155 In a DTLS connection where handshake messages are delivered out-of-order those
1156 messages that OpenSSL is not yet ready to process will be buffered for later
1157 use. Under certain circumstances, a flaw in the logic means that those messages
1158 do not get removed from the buffer even though the handshake has been completed.
1159 An attacker could force up to approx. 15 messages to remain in the buffer when
1160 they are no longer required. These messages will be cleared when the DTLS
1161 connection is closed. The default maximum size for a message is 100k. Therefore
1162 the attacker could force an additional 1500k to be consumed per connection. By
1163 opening many simulataneous connections an attacker could cause a DoS attack
1164 through memory exhaustion.
1166 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1167 <reported source="Quan Luo" date="20160622"/>
1169 <issue public="20160819">
1170 <impact severity="Low"/>
1171 <cve name="2016-2181"/>
1172 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1173 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1174 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1175 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1176 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1177 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1178 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1179 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1180 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1181 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1182 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1183 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1184 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1185 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1186 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1187 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1188 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1189 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1190 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1191 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1192 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
1193 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1194 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1195 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1196 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1197 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1198 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1199 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1200 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1201 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
1202 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922">
1203 <git hash="b77ab018b79a00f789b0fb85596b446b08be4c9d"/>
1205 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922">
1206 <git hash="3884b47b7c255c2e94d9b387ee83c7e8bb981258"/>
1211 A flaw in the DTLS replay attack protection mechanism means that records that
1212 arrive for future epochs update the replay protection "window" before the MAC
1213 for the record has been validated. This could be exploited by an attacker by
1214 sending a record for the next epoch (which does not have to decrypt or have a
1215 valid MAC), with a very large sequence number. This means that all subsequent
1216 legitimate packets are dropped causing a denial of service for a specific
1219 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1220 <reported source="OCAP audit team" date="20151121"/>
1222 <issue public="20160921">
1223 <impact severity="Low"/>
1224 <cve name="2016-6306"/>
1225 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1226 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1227 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1228 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1229 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1230 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1231 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1232 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1233 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1234 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1235 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1236 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1237 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1238 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1239 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1240 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1241 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1242 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1243 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1244 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1245 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t"/>
1246 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1247 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1248 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1249 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1250 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1251 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1252 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1253 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1254 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h"/>
1255 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1u" date="20160922">
1256 <git hash="bb1a4866034255749ac578adb06a76335fc117b1"/>
1258 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2i" date="20160922">
1259 <git hash="006a788c84e541c8920dd2ad85fb62b52185c519"/>
1262 In OpenSSL 1.0.2 and earlier some missing message length checks can result in
1263 OOB reads of up to 2 bytes beyond an allocated buffer. There is a theoretical
1264 DoS risk but this has not been observed in practice on common platforms.
1266 The messages affected are client certificate, client certificate request and
1267 server certificate. As a result the attack can only be performed against
1268 a client or a server which enables client authentication.
1270 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1271 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160822"/>
1273 <issue public="20160921">
1274 <impact severity="Low"/>
1275 <cve name="2016-6307"/>
1276 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
1277 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922">
1278 <git hash="4b390b6c3f8df925dc92a3dd6b022baa9a2f4650"/>
1282 A TLS message includes 3 bytes for its length in the header for the message.
1283 This would allow for messages up to 16Mb in length. Messages of this length are
1284 excessive and OpenSSL includes a check to ensure that a peer is sending
1285 reasonably sized messages in order to avoid too much memory being consumed to
1286 service a connection. A flaw in the logic of version 1.1.0 means that memory for
1287 the message is allocated too early, prior to the excessive message length
1288 check. Due to way memory is allocated in OpenSSL this could mean an attacker
1289 could force up to 21Mb to be allocated to service a connection. This could lead
1290 to a Denial of Service through memory exhaustion. However, the excessive message
1291 length check still takes place, and this would cause the connection to
1292 immediately fail. Assuming that the application calls SSL_free() on the failed
1293 conneciton in a timely manner then the 21Mb of allocated memory will then be
1294 immediately freed again. Therefore the excessive memory allocation will be
1295 transitory in nature. This then means that there is only a security impact if:
1297 1) The application does not call SSL_free() in a timely manner in the
1298 event that the connection fails
1300 2) The application is working in a constrained environment where there
1301 is very little free memory
1303 3) The attacker initiates multiple connection attempts such that there
1304 are multiple connections in a state where memory has been allocated for
1305 the connection; SSL_free() has not yet been called; and there is
1306 insufficient memory to service the multiple requests.
1308 Except in the instance of (1) above any Denial Of Service is likely to
1309 be transitory because as soon as the connection fails the memory is
1310 subsequently freed again in the SSL_free() call. However there is an
1311 increased risk during this period of application crashes due to the lack
1312 of memory - which would then mean a more serious Denial of Service.
1314 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1315 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160818"/>
1317 <issue public="20160921">
1318 <impact severity="Low"/>
1319 <cve name="2016-6308"/>
1320 <affects base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0"/>
1321 <fixed base="1.1.0" version="1.1.0a" date="20160922">
1322 <git hash="df6b5e29ffea2d5a3e08de92fb765fdb21c7a21e"/>
1326 A DTLS message includes 3 bytes for its length in the header for the message.
1327 This would allow for messages up to 16Mb in length. Messages of this length are
1328 excessive and OpenSSL includes a check to ensure that a peer is sending
1329 reasonably sized messages in order to avoid too much memory being consumed to
1330 service a connection. A flaw in the logic of version 1.1.0 means that memory for
1331 the message is allocated too early, prior to the excessive message length
1332 check. Due to way memory is allocated in OpenSSL this could mean an attacker
1333 could force up to 21Mb to be allocated to service a connection. This could lead
1334 to a Denial of Service through memory exhaustion. However, the excessive message
1335 length check still takes place, and this would cause the connection to
1336 immediately fail. Assuming that the application calls SSL_free() on the failed
1337 conneciton in a timely manner then the 21Mb of allocated memory will then be
1338 immediately freed again. Therefore the excessive memory allocation will be
1339 transitory in nature. This then means that there is only a security impact if:
1341 1) The application does not call SSL_free() in a timely manner in the
1342 event that the connection fails
1344 2) The application is working in a constrained environment where there
1345 is very little free memory
1347 3) The attacker initiates multiple connection attempts such that there
1348 are multiple connections in a state where memory has been allocated for
1349 the connection; SSL_free() has not yet been called; and there is
1350 insufficient memory to service the multiple requests.
1352 Except in the instance of (1) above any Denial Of Service is likely to
1353 be transitory because as soon as the connection fails the memory is
1354 subsequently freed again in the SSL_free() call. However there is an
1355 increased risk during this period of application crashes due to the lack
1356 of memory - which would then mean a more serious Denial of Service.
1358 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160922.txt"/>
1359 <reported source="Shi Lei (Gear Team, Qihoo 360 Inc.)" date="20160818"/>
1361 <issue public="20160503">
1362 <impact severity="High"/>
1363 <cve name="2016-2108"/>
1364 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1365 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1366 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1367 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1368 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1369 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1370 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1371 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1372 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1373 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1374 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1375 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1376 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1377 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1378 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1379 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1380 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1381 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1382 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o" date="20160612"/>
1383 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c" date="20160612"/>
1386 This issue affected versions of OpenSSL prior to April 2015. The bug
1387 causing the vulnerability was fixed on April 18th 2015, and released
1388 as part of the June 11th 2015 security releases. The security impact
1389 of the bug was not known at the time.
1391 In previous versions of OpenSSL, ASN.1 encoding the value zero
1392 represented as a negative integer can cause a buffer underflow
1393 with an out-of-bounds write in i2c_ASN1_INTEGER. The ASN.1 parser does
1394 not normally create "negative zeroes" when parsing ASN.1 input, and
1395 therefore, an attacker cannot trigger this bug.
1397 However, a second, independent bug revealed that the ASN.1 parser
1398 (specifically, d2i_ASN1_TYPE) can misinterpret a large universal tag
1399 as a negative zero value. Large universal tags are not present in any
1400 common ASN.1 structures (such as X509) but are accepted as part of ANY
1403 Therefore, if an application deserializes untrusted ASN.1 structures
1404 containing an ANY field, and later reserializes them, an attacker may
1405 be able to trigger an out-of-bounds write. This has been shown to
1406 cause memory corruption that is potentially exploitable with some
1407 malloc implementations.
1409 Applications that parse and re-encode X509 certificates are known to
1410 be vulnerable. Applications that verify RSA signatures on X509
1411 certificates may also be vulnerable; however, only certificates with
1412 valid signatures trigger ASN.1 re-encoding and hence the
1413 bug. Specifically, since OpenSSL's default TLS X509 chain verification
1414 code verifies the certificate chain from root to leaf, TLS handshakes
1415 could only be targeted with valid certificates issued by trusted
1416 Certification Authorities.
1418 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1419 <reported source="Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Red Hat), Hanno Böck, David Benjamin (Google)" date="20160331"/>
1421 <issue public="20160503">
1422 <impact severity="High"/>
1423 <cve name="2016-2107"/>
1424 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1425 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1426 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1427 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1428 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1429 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1430 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1431 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1432 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1433 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1434 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1435 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1436 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1437 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1438 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1439 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1440 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1441 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1442 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1443 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1444 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1445 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1446 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1447 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1448 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1449 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1450 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1451 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1452 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1453 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503">
1454 <git hash="68595c0c2886e7942a14f98c17a55a88afb6c292"/>
1458 A MITM attacker can use a padding oracle attack to decrypt traffic
1459 when the connection uses an AES CBC cipher and the server support
1462 This issue was introduced as part of the fix for Lucky 13 padding
1463 attack (CVE-2013-0169). The padding check was rewritten to be in
1464 constant time by making sure that always the same bytes are read and
1465 compared against either the MAC or padding bytes. But it no longer
1466 checked that there was enough data to have both the MAC and padding
1469 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1470 <reported source="Juraj Somorovsky" date="20160413"/>
1472 <issue public="20160503">
1473 <impact severity="Low"/>
1474 <cve name="2016-2105"/>
1475 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1476 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1477 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1478 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1479 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1480 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1481 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1482 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1483 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1484 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1485 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1486 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1487 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1488 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1489 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1490 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1491 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1492 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1493 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1494 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1495 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1496 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1497 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1498 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1499 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1500 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1501 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1502 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1503 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1504 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1507 An overflow can occur in the EVP_EncodeUpdate() function which is used for
1508 Base64 encoding of binary data. If an attacker is able to supply very
1509 large amounts of input data then a length check can overflow resulting in
1512 Internally to OpenSSL the EVP_EncodeUpdate() function is primarly used by the
1513 PEM_write_bio* family of functions. These are mainly used within the OpenSSL
1514 command line applications. These internal uses are not considered vulnerable
1515 because all calls are bounded with length checks so no overflow is possible.
1516 User applications that call these APIs directly with large amounts of untrusted
1517 data may be vulnerable. (Note: Initial analysis suggested that the
1518 PEM_write_bio* were vulnerable, and this is reflected in the patch commit
1519 message. This is no longer believed to be the case).
1521 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1522 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160303"/>
1524 <issue public="20160503">
1525 <impact severity="Low"/>
1526 <cve name="2016-2106"/>
1527 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1528 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1529 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1530 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1531 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1532 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1533 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1534 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1535 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1536 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1537 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1538 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1539 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1540 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1541 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1542 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1543 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1544 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1545 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1546 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1547 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1548 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1549 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1550 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1551 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1552 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1553 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1554 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1555 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1556 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1559 An overflow can occur in the EVP_EncryptUpdate() function. If an attacker
1560 is able to supply very large amounts of input data after a previous call
1561 to EVP_EncryptUpdate() with a partial block then a length check can
1562 overflow resulting in a heap corruption. Following an analysis of all
1563 OpenSSL internal usage of the EVP_EncryptUpdate() function all usage is
1564 one of two forms. The first form is where the EVP_EncryptUpdate() call is
1565 known to be the first called function after an EVP_EncryptInit(), and
1566 therefore that specific call must be safe. The second form is where the
1567 length passed to EVP_EncryptUpdate() can be seen from the code to be some
1568 small value and therefore there is no possibility of an overflow. Since
1569 all instances are one of these two forms, it is believed that there can be
1570 no overflows in internal code due to this problem. It should be noted that
1571 EVP_DecryptUpdate() can call EVP_EncryptUpdate() in certain code paths.
1572 Also EVP_CipherUpdate() is a synonym for EVP_EncryptUpdate(). All
1573 instances of these calls have also been analysed too and it is believed
1574 there are no instances in internal usage where an overflow could occur.
1576 This could still represent a security issue for end user code that calls
1577 this function directly.
1579 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1580 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160303"/>
1582 <issue public="20160503">
1583 <impact severity="Low"/>
1584 <cve name="2016-2109"/>
1585 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1586 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1587 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1588 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1589 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1590 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1591 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1592 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1593 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1594 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1595 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1596 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1597 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1598 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1599 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1600 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1601 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1602 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1603 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1604 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1605 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1606 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1607 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1608 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1609 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1610 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1611 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1612 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1613 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1614 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1617 When ASN.1 data is read from a BIO using functions such as d2i_CMS_bio()
1618 a short invalid encoding can casuse allocation of large amounts of memory
1619 potentially consuming excessive resources or exhausting memory.
1621 Any application parsing untrusted data through d2i BIO functions is
1622 affected. The memory based functions such as d2i_X509() are *not*
1623 affected. Since the memory based functions are used by the TLS library,
1624 TLS applications are not affected.
1626 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1627 <reported source="Brian Carpenter" date="20160404"/>
1629 <issue public="20160503">
1630 <impact severity="Low"/>
1631 <cve name="2016-2176"/>
1632 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1633 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1634 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1635 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1636 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1637 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1638 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1639 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1640 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1641 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1642 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1643 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1644 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1645 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1646 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1647 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1648 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1649 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1650 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1651 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s"/>
1652 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1653 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1654 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1655 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1656 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1657 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1658 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1659 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g"/>
1660 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1t" date="20160503"/>
1661 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2h" date="20160503"/>
1664 ASN1 Strings that are over 1024 bytes can cause an overread in
1665 applications using the X509_NAME_oneline() function on EBCDIC systems.
1666 This could result in arbitrary stack data being returned in the buffer.
1668 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160503.txt"/>
1669 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160305"/>
1671 <issue public="20160301">
1672 <impact severity="High"/>
1673 <cve name="2016-0800"/>
1674 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1675 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1676 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1677 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1678 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1679 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1680 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1681 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1682 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1683 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1684 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1685 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1686 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1687 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1688 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1689 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1690 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1691 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1692 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1693 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1694 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1695 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1696 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1697 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1698 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1699 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1700 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1701 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1704 A cross-protocol attack was discovered that could lead to decryption of TLS
1705 sessions by using a server supporting SSLv2 and EXPORT cipher suites as a
1706 Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle. Note that traffic between clients and
1707 non-vulnerable servers can be decrypted provided another server supporting
1708 SSLv2 and EXPORT ciphers (even with a different protocol such as SMTP, IMAP or
1709 POP) shares the RSA keys of the non-vulnerable server. This vulnerability is
1710 known as DROWN (CVE-2016-0800).
1712 Recovering one session key requires the attacker to perform approximately 2^50
1713 computation, as well as thousands of connections to the affected server. A more
1714 efficient variant of the DROWN attack exists against unpatched OpenSSL servers
1715 using versions that predate 1.0.2a, 1.0.1m, 1.0.0r and 0.9.8zf released on
1716 19/Mar/2015 (see CVE-2016-0703 below).
1718 Users can avoid this issue by disabling the SSLv2 protocol in all their SSL/TLS
1719 servers, if they've not done so already. Disabling all SSLv2 ciphers is also
1720 sufficient, provided the patches for CVE-2015-3197 (fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.1r and
1721 1.0.2f) have been deployed. Servers that have not disabled the SSLv2 protocol,
1722 and are not patched for CVE-2015-3197 are vulnerable to DROWN even if all SSLv2
1723 ciphers are nominally disabled, because malicious clients can force the use of
1724 SSLv2 with EXPORT ciphers.
1726 OpenSSL 1.0.2g and 1.0.1s deploy the following mitigation against DROWN:
1728 SSLv2 is now by default disabled at build-time. Builds that are not configured
1729 with "enable-ssl2" will not support SSLv2. Even if "enable-ssl2" is used,
1730 users who want to negotiate SSLv2 via the version-flexible SSLv23_method() will
1731 need to explicitly call either of:
1733 SSL_CTX_clear_options(ctx, SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2);
1735 SSL_clear_options(ssl, SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2);
1737 as appropriate. Even if either of those is used, or the application explicitly
1738 uses the version-specific SSLv2_method() or its client or server variants,
1739 SSLv2 ciphers vulnerable to exhaustive search key recovery have been removed.
1740 Specifically, the SSLv2 40-bit EXPORT ciphers, and SSLv2 56-bit DES are no
1743 In addition, weak ciphers in SSLv3 and up are now disabled in default builds of
1744 OpenSSL. Builds that are not configured with "enable-weak-ssl-ciphers" will
1745 not provide any "EXPORT" or "LOW" strength ciphers.
1747 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1748 <reported source="Nimrod Aviram and Sebastian Schinzel" date="20151229"/>
1750 <issue public="20160301">
1751 <impact severity="Low"/>
1752 <cve name="2016-0705"/>
1753 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1754 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1755 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1756 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1757 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1758 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1759 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1760 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1761 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1762 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1763 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1764 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1765 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1766 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1767 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1768 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1769 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1770 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1771 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1772 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1773 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1774 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1775 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1776 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1777 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1778 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1779 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1780 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1783 A double free bug was discovered when OpenSSL parses malformed DSA private keys
1784 and could lead to a DoS attack or memory corruption for applications that
1785 receive DSA private keys from untrusted sources. This scenario is considered
1788 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1789 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google/BoringSSL)" date="20160207"/>
1791 <issue public="20160301">
1792 <impact severity="Low"/>
1793 <cve name="2016-0798"/>
1794 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1795 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1796 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1797 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1798 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1799 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1800 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1801 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1802 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1803 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1804 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1805 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1806 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1807 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1808 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1809 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1810 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1811 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1812 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1813 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1814 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1815 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1816 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1817 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1818 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1819 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1820 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1821 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1824 The SRP user database lookup method SRP_VBASE_get_by_user had
1825 confusing memory management semantics; the returned pointer was sometimes newly
1826 allocated, and sometimes owned by the callee. The calling code has no way of
1827 distinguishing these two cases.
1829 Specifically, SRP servers that configure a secret seed to hide valid
1830 login information are vulnerable to a memory leak: an attacker
1831 connecting with an invalid username can cause a memory leak of around
1832 300 bytes per connection. Servers that do not configure SRP, or
1833 configure SRP but do not configure a seed are not vulnerable.
1835 In Apache, the seed directive is known as SSLSRPUnknownUserSeed.
1837 To mitigate the memory leak, the seed handling in
1838 SRP_VBASE_get_by_user is now disabled even if the user has configured
1839 a seed. Applications are advised to migrate to
1840 SRP_VBASE_get1_by_user. However, note that OpenSSL makes no strong
1841 guarantees about the indistinguishability of valid and invalid
1842 logins. In particular, computations are currently not carried out in
1845 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1846 <reported source="Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL)" date="20160223"/>
1848 <issue public="20160301">
1849 <impact severity="Low"/>
1850 <cve name="2016-0797"/>
1851 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1852 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1853 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1854 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1855 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1856 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1857 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1858 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1859 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1860 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1861 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1862 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1863 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1864 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1865 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1866 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1867 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1868 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1869 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1870 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1871 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1872 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1873 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1874 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1875 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1876 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1877 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1878 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1881 In the BN_hex2bn function the number of hex digits is calculated using an int
1882 value |i|. Later |bn_expand| is called with a value of |i * 4|. For large values
1883 of |i| this can result in |bn_expand| not allocating any memory because |i * 4|
1884 is negative. This can leave the internal BIGNUM data field as NULL leading to a
1885 subsequent NULL ptr deref. For very large values of |i|, the calculation |i * 4|
1886 could be a positive value smaller than |i|. In this case memory is allocated to
1887 the internal BIGNUM data field, but it is insufficiently sized leading to heap
1888 corruption. A similar issue exists in BN_dec2bn. This could have security
1889 consequences if BN_hex2bn/BN_dec2bn is ever called by user applications with
1890 very large untrusted hex/dec data. This is anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
1892 All OpenSSL internal usage of these functions use data that is not expected to
1893 be untrusted, e.g. config file data or application command line arguments. If
1894 user developed applications generate config file data based on untrusted data
1895 then it is possible that this could also lead to security consequences. This is
1896 also anticipated to be rare.
1898 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1899 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160219"/>
1901 <issue public="20160301">
1902 <impact severity="Low"/>
1903 <cve name="2016-0799"/>
1904 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1905 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1906 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1907 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1908 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1909 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1910 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1911 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1912 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1913 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1914 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1915 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1916 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1917 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1918 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1919 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1920 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1921 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1922 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1923 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1924 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1925 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1926 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1927 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1928 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1929 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1930 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1931 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1934 The internal |fmtstr| function used in processing a "%s" format string in the
1935 BIO_*printf functions could overflow while calculating the length of a string
1936 and cause an OOB read when printing very long strings.
1938 Additionally the internal |doapr_outch| function can attempt to write to an OOB
1939 memory location (at an offset from the NULL pointer) in the event of a memory
1940 allocation failure. In 1.0.2 and below this could be caused where the size of a
1941 buffer to be allocated is greater than INT_MAX. E.g. this could be in processing
1942 a very long "%s" format string. Memory leaks can also occur.
1944 The first issue may mask the second issue dependent on compiler behaviour.
1945 These problems could enable attacks where large amounts of untrusted data is
1946 passed to the BIO_*printf functions. If applications use these functions in this
1947 way then they could be vulnerable. OpenSSL itself uses these functions when
1948 printing out human-readable dumps of ASN.1 data. Therefore applications that
1949 print this data could be vulnerable if the data is from untrusted sources.
1950 OpenSSL command line applications could also be vulnerable where they print out
1951 ASN.1 data, or if untrusted data is passed as command line arguments.
1953 Libssl is not considered directly vulnerable. Additionally certificates etc
1954 received via remote connections via libssl are also unlikely to be able to
1955 trigger these issues because of message size limits enforced within libssl.
1957 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
1958 <reported source="Guido Vranken" date="20160223"/>
1960 <issue public="20160301">
1961 <impact severity="Low"/>
1962 <cve name="2016-0702"/>
1963 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
1964 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
1965 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
1966 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
1967 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
1968 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
1969 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
1970 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
1971 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
1972 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
1973 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
1974 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
1975 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
1976 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
1977 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
1978 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
1979 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
1980 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
1981 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r"/>
1982 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
1983 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
1984 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
1985 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
1986 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
1987 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
1988 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f"/>
1989 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1s" date="20160301"/>
1990 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2g" date="20160301"/>
1993 A side-channel attack was found which makes use of cache-bank conflicts on the
1994 Intel Sandy-Bridge microarchitecture which could lead to the recovery of RSA
1995 keys. The ability to exploit this issue is limited as it relies on an attacker
1996 who has control of code in a thread running on the same hyper-threaded core as
1997 the victim thread which is performing decryptions.
1999 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
2000 <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"/>
2002 <issue public="20160301">
2003 <impact severity="High"/>
2004 <cve name="2016-0703"/>
2006 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2007 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2008 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2009 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2010 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2011 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2012 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2013 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2014 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2015 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2016 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2017 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2018 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2019 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2020 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2021 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2022 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2023 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2024 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2025 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2026 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2027 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2028 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2029 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2030 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2031 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2032 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2033 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2034 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2035 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2036 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2037 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2038 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2039 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2040 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2041 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2042 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2043 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2044 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2045 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2046 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2047 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2048 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2049 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2050 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2051 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2052 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2053 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2054 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2055 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2056 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2057 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2058 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2059 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2060 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2061 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2062 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2063 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2064 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2065 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2066 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2067 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2068 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
2069 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
2070 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
2071 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2074 This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
2075 time the code was refactored to address vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
2077 s2_srvr.c did not enforce that clear-key-length is 0 for non-export ciphers. If
2078 clear-key bytes are present for these ciphers, they *displace* encrypted-key
2079 bytes. This leads to an efficient divide-and-conquer key recovery attack: if an
2080 eavesdropper has intercepted an SSLv2 handshake, they can use the server as an
2081 oracle to determine the SSLv2 master-key, using only 16 connections to the
2082 server and negligible computation.
2084 More importantly, this leads to a more efficient version of DROWN that is
2085 effective against non-export ciphersuites, and requires no significant
2088 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
2089 <reported source="David Adrian and J.Alex Halderman (University of Michigan)" date="20160210"/>
2091 <issue public="20160301">
2092 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2093 <cve name="2016-0704"/>
2095 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2096 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2097 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2098 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2099 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2100 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2101 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2102 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2103 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2104 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2105 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2106 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2107 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2108 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2109 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2110 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2111 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2112 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2113 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2114 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2115 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2116 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2117 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2118 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2119 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2120 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2121 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2122 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2123 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2124 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2125 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2126 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2127 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2128 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2129 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2130 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2131 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2132 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2133 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2134 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2135 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2136 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2137 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2138 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2139 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2140 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2141 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2142 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2143 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2144 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2145 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2146 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2147 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2148 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2149 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2150 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2151 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2152 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2153 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2154 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2155 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2156 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2157 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
2158 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
2159 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
2160 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
2163 This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
2164 time the code was refactored to address the vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
2166 s2_srvr.c overwrite the wrong bytes in the master-key when applying
2167 Bleichenbacher protection for export cipher suites. This provides a
2168 Bleichenbacher oracle, and could potentially allow more efficient variants of
2171 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160301.txt"/>
2172 <reported source="David Adrian and J.Alex Halderman (University of Michigan)" date="20160210"/>
2174 <issue public="20160128">
2175 <impact severity="High"/>
2176 <cve name="2016-0701"/>
2177 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2178 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2179 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2180 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2181 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
2182 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
2183 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f" date="2016-0701"/>
2186 Historically OpenSSL usually only ever generated DH parameters based on "safe"
2187 primes. More recently (in version 1.0.2) support was provided for generating
2188 X9.42 style parameter files such as those required for RFC 5114 support. The
2189 primes used in such files may not be "safe". Where an application is using DH
2190 configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" then an attacker
2191 could use this fact to find a peer's private DH exponent. This attack requires
2192 that the attacker complete multiple handshakes in which the peer uses the same
2193 private DH exponent. For example this could be used to discover a TLS server's
2194 private DH exponent if it's reusing the private DH exponent or it's using a
2195 static DH ciphersuite.
2197 OpenSSL provides the option SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE for ephemeral DH (DHE) in TLS.
2198 It is not on by default. If the option is not set then the server reuses the
2199 same private DH exponent for the life of the server process and would be
2200 vulnerable to this attack. It is believed that many popular applications do set
2201 this option and would therefore not be at risk.
2203 OpenSSL before 1.0.2f will reuse the key if:
2204 - SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh()/SSL_set_tmp_dh() is used and SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not
2206 - SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh_callback()/SSL_set_tmp_dh_callback() is used, and both the
2207 parameters and the key are set and SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not used. This is
2208 an undocumted feature and parameter files don't contain the key.
2209 - Static DH ciphersuites are used. The key is part of the certificate and
2210 so it will always reuse it. This is only supported in 1.0.2.
2212 It will not reuse the key for DHE ciphers suites if:
2213 - SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is set
2214 - SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh_callback()/SSL_set_tmp_dh_callback() is used and the
2215 callback does not provide the key, only the parameters. The callback is
2216 almost always used like this.
2218 Non-safe primes are generated by OpenSSL when using:
2219 - genpkey with the dh_rfc5114 option. This will write an X9.42 style file
2220 including the prime-order subgroup size "q". This is supported since the 1.0.2
2221 version. Older versions can't read files generated in this way.
2222 - dhparam with the -dsaparam option. This has always been documented as
2223 requiring the single use.
2225 The fix for this issue adds an additional check where a "q" parameter is
2226 available (as is the case in X9.42 based parameters). This detects the
2227 only known attack, and is the only possible defense for static DH ciphersuites.
2228 This could have some performance impact.
2230 Additionally the SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option has been switched on by default
2231 and cannot be disabled. This could have some performance impact.
2233 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160128.txt"/>
2234 <reported source="Antonio Sanso (Adobe)" date="20160112"/>
2236 <issue public="20160128">
2237 <impact severity="Low"/>
2238 <cve name="2015-3197"/>
2239 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2240 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2241 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2242 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2243 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2244 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2245 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2246 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2247 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2248 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2249 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2250 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2251 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2252 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2253 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
2254 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
2255 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
2256 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q"/>
2257 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2258 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2259 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2260 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2261 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
2262 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e"/>
2263 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1r" date="20160128"/>
2264 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2f" date="20160128"/>
2267 A malicious client can negotiate SSLv2 ciphers that have been disabled on the
2268 server and complete SSLv2 handshakes even if all SSLv2 ciphers have been
2269 disabled, provided that the SSLv2 protocol was not also disabled via
2272 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20160128.txt"/>
2273 <reported source="Nimrod Aviram and Sebastian Schinzel" date="20151226"/>
2275 <issue public="20150811">
2276 <impact severity="Low"/>
2277 <cve name="2015-1794"/>
2278 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2279 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2280 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2281 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2282 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
2283 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
2286 If a client receives a ServerKeyExchange for an anonymous DH ciphersuite with
2287 the value of p set to 0 then a seg fault can occur leading to a possible denial
2290 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
2291 <reported source="Guy Leaver (Cisco)" date="20150803"/>
2293 <issue public="20151203">
2294 <cve name="2015-3193"/>
2295 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2296 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2297 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2298 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2299 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2300 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
2301 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
2304 There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure. No
2305 EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA
2306 as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not
2307 believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very
2308 difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information
2309 about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources
2310 required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only
2311 accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker would
2312 additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target
2313 private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private
2314 key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can occur by
2315 default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites.
2317 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
2318 <reported source="Hanno Böck" date="20150813"/>
2320 <issue public="20151203">
2321 <cve name="2015-3194"/>
2322 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2323 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2324 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2325 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2326 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2327 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2328 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2329 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2330 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2331 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2332 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2333 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2334 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2335 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2336 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2337 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
2338 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
2339 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
2340 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2341 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2342 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2343 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2344 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
2345 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
2346 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q" date="20151203"/>
2349 The signature verification routines will crash with a NULL pointer dereference
2350 if presented with an ASN.1 signature using the RSA PSS algorithm and absent
2351 mask generation function parameter. Since these routines are used to verify
2352 certificate signature algorithms this can be used to crash any certificate
2353 verification operation and exploited in a DoS attack. Any application which
2354 performs certificate verification is vulnerable including OpenSSL clients and
2355 servers which enable client authentication.
2357 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
2358 <reported source="Loïc Jonas Etienne (Qnective AG)" date="20150827"/>
2360 <issue public="20151203">
2361 <cve name="2015-3195"/>
2362 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2363 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2364 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2365 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2366 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2367 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2368 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2369 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2370 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2371 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2372 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2373 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2374 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2375 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2376 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2377 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2378 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2379 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2380 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2381 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2382 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2383 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2384 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2385 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2386 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2387 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2388 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2389 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2390 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2391 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2392 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2393 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2394 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2395 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg"/>
2396 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2397 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2398 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2399 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2400 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2401 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2402 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2403 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2404 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0h"/>
2405 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2406 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2407 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2408 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2409 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2410 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2411 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2412 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2413 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2414 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2415 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s"/>
2416 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2417 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2418 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2419 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2420 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2421 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2422 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2423 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2424 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2425 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2426 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2427 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2428 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2429 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2430 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
2431 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
2432 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p"/>
2433 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2434 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2435 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2436 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2437 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d"/>
2438 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2e" date="20151203"/>
2439 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1q" date="20151203"/>
2440 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0t" date="20151203"/>
2441 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zh" date="20151203"/>
2444 When presented with a malformed X509_ATTRIBUTE structure OpenSSL will leak
2445 memory. This structure is used by the PKCS#7 and CMS routines so any
2446 application which reads PKCS#7 or CMS data from untrusted sources is affected.
2447 SSL/TLS is not affected.
2449 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
2450 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google/BoringSSL) using libFuzzer" date="20151109"/>
2452 <issue public="20151203">
2453 <cve name="2015-3196"/>
2454 <impact severity="Low"/>
2455 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2456 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2457 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2458 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2459 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2460 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2461 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2462 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2463 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0h"/>
2464 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2465 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2466 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2467 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2468 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2469 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2470 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2471 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2472 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2473 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2474 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s"/>
2475 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2476 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2477 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2478 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2479 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2480 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2481 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2482 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2483 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2484 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2485 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2486 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2487 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2488 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2489 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
2490 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
2491 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2492 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2493 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2494 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2495 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d" date="20150709"/>
2496 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p" date="20150709"/>
2497 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0t" date="20151203"/>
2500 If PSK identity hints are received by a multi-threaded client then
2501 the values are wrongly updated in the parent SSL_CTX structure. This can
2502 result in a race condition potentially leading to a double free of the
2505 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20151203.txt"/>
2506 <reported source="Stephen Henson (OpenSSL)"/>
2509 <issue public="20150709">
2510 <cve name="2015-1793"/>
2511 <impact severity="High"/>
2512 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n"/>
2513 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1o"/>
2514 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b"/>
2515 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2c"/>
2516 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2d" date="20150709"/>
2517 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1p" date="20150709"/>
2520 An error in the implementation of the alternative certificate
2521 chain logic could allow an attacker to cause certain checks on
2522 untrusted certificates to be bypassed, such as the CA flag,
2523 enabling them to use a valid leaf certificate to act as a CA and
2524 "issue" an invalid certificate.
2526 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150709.txt"/>
2527 <reported source="Adam Langley and David Benjamin (Google/BoringSSL)" date="20150624"/>
2529 <issue public="20150611">
2530 <cve name="2015-1788"/>
2531 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2532 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2533 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2534 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2535 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2536 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2537 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2538 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2539 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2540 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2541 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2542 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2543 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2544 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2545 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2546 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2547 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2548 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2549 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2550 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2551 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2552 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2553 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2554 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2555 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2556 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2557 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2558 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2559 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2560 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2561 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2562 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2563 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2564 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2565 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2566 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2567 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2568 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2569 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2570 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2571 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2572 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2573 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2574 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e" date="20110906"/>
2575 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
2578 When processing an ECParameters structure OpenSSL enters an infinite loop if
2579 the curve specified is over a specially malformed binary polynomial field.
2581 This can be used to perform denial of service against any
2582 system which processes public keys, certificate requests or
2583 certificates. This includes TLS clients and TLS servers with
2584 client authentication enabled.
2586 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2587 <reported source="Joseph Birr-Pixton" date="20150406"/>
2590 <issue public="20150611">
2591 <cve name="2015-1789"/>
2592 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2593 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2594 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2595 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2596 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2597 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2598 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2599 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2600 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2601 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2602 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2603 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2604 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2605 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2609 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2610 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2611 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2612 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2613 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2614 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2615 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2616 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2617 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2618 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2619 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2620 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2621 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2622 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2623 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2624 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2625 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2626 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2627 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2628 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2629 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2630 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2631 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2632 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2633 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2634 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2635 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2636 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2637 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2638 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2639 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2640 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2641 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2642 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2643 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2644 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2645 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2646 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2647 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2648 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2649 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2650 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2651 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2652 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2653 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2654 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2655 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2656 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2657 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2658 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2659 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2660 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2661 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2662 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2665 X509_cmp_time does not properly check the length of the ASN1_TIME
2666 string and can read a few bytes out of bounds. In addition,
2667 X509_cmp_time accepts an arbitrary number of fractional seconds in the
2670 An attacker can use this to craft malformed certificates and CRLs of
2671 various sizes and potentially cause a segmentation fault, resulting in
2672 a DoS on applications that verify certificates or CRLs. TLS clients
2673 that verify CRLs are affected. TLS clients and servers with client
2674 authentication enabled may be affected if they use custom verification
2677 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2678 <reported source="Robert Święcki (Google Security Team)" date="20150408"/>
2679 <reported source="Hanno Böck" date="20150411"/>
2682 <issue public="20150611">
2683 <cve name="2015-1790"/>
2684 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2685 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2686 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2687 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2688 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2689 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2690 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2691 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2692 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2693 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2694 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2695 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2698 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2699 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2700 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2701 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2702 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2703 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2704 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2705 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2706 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2707 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2708 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2709 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2710 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2711 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2712 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2713 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2714 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2715 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2716 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2717 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2718 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2719 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2720 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2721 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2722 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2723 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2724 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2725 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2726 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2727 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2728 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2729 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2730 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2731 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2732 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2733 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2734 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2735 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2736 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2737 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2738 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2739 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2740 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2741 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2742 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2743 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2744 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2745 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2746 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2747 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2748 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2749 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2750 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2751 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2752 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2753 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2754 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2757 The PKCS#7 parsing code does not handle missing inner EncryptedContent
2758 correctly. An attacker can craft malformed ASN.1-encoded PKCS#7 blobs
2759 with missing content and trigger a NULL pointer dereference on parsing.
2761 Applications that decrypt PKCS#7 data or otherwise parse PKCS#7
2762 structures from untrusted sources are affected. OpenSSL clients and
2763 servers are not affected.
2765 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2766 <reported source="Michal Zalewski (Google)" date="20150418"/>
2769 <issue public="20150611">
2770 <cve name="2015-1792"/>
2771 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2772 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2773 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2774 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2775 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2776 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2777 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2778 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2779 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2780 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2781 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2782 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2783 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2784 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2785 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2786 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2787 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2788 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2789 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2790 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2791 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2792 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2793 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2794 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2795 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2796 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2797 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2798 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2799 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2800 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2801 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2802 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2803 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2804 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2805 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2806 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2807 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2808 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2809 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2810 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2811 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2812 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2813 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2814 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2815 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2816 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2817 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2818 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2819 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2820 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2821 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2822 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2823 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2824 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2825 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2826 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2827 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2828 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2829 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2830 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2831 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2832 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2833 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2834 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2835 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2836 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2837 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2838 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2839 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2840 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2841 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2844 When verifying a signedData message the CMS code can enter an infinite loop
2845 if presented with an unknown hash function OID.
2847 This can be used to perform denial of service against any system which
2848 verifies signedData messages using the CMS code.
2850 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2851 <reported source="Johannes Bauer" date="20150331"/>
2854 <issue public="20150602">
2855 <cve name="2015-1791"/>
2856 <impact severity="Low"/>
2857 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2858 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2859 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2860 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2861 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2862 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2863 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2864 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2865 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2866 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2867 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2868 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2869 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2870 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2871 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2872 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2873 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2874 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2875 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2876 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2877 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2878 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2879 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2880 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2881 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2882 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2883 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
2884 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
2885 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
2886 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
2887 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
2888 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf"/>
2889 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2890 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2891 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2892 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2893 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2894 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2895 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2896 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2897 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2898 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2899 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2900 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2901 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
2902 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
2903 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
2904 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
2905 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
2906 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r"/>
2907 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2908 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2909 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2910 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2911 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2912 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2913 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2914 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2915 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
2916 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
2917 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
2918 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
2919 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
2920 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m"/>
2921 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
2922 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a"/>
2923 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2b" date="20150611"/>
2924 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1n" date="20150611"/>
2925 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0s" date="20150611"/>
2926 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zg" date="20150611"/>
2929 If a NewSessionTicket is received by a multi-threaded client when attempting to
2930 reuse a previous ticket then a race condition can occur potentially leading to
2931 a double free of the ticket data.
2933 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2934 <reported source="Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL)"/>
2937 <issue public="20150611">
2938 <cve name="2014-8176"/>
2939 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
2940 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
2941 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
2942 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
2943 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
2944 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
2945 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
2946 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
2947 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
2948 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
2949 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
2950 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
2951 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
2952 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
2953 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
2954 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
2955 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
2956 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
2957 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
2958 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
2959 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
2960 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
2961 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
2962 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
2963 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
2964 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
2965 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
2966 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
2967 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
2968 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
2969 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
2970 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
2971 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
2972 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
2973 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
2974 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
2975 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
2976 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
2977 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
2978 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
2979 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
2980 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
2981 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
2982 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
2983 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
2984 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
2985 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
2986 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605"/>
2987 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605"/>
2988 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605"/>
2990 This vulnerability does not affect current versions of OpenSSL. It
2991 existed in previous OpenSSL versions and was fixed in June 2014.
2993 If a DTLS peer receives application data between the ChangeCipherSpec
2994 and Finished messages, buffering of such data may cause an invalid
2995 free, resulting in a segmentation fault or potentially, memory
2998 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150611.txt"/>
2999 <reported source="Praveen Kariyanahalli, and subsequently by Ivan Fratric and Felix Groebert (Google)" date="20140328"/>
3001 <issue public="20150319">
3002 <impact severity="High"/>
3003 <cve name="2015-0291"/>
3004 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3005 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3008 ClientHello sigalgs DoS. If a client connects to an OpenSSL 1.0.2 server and renegotiates with an
3009 invalid signature algorithms extension a NULL pointer dereference will occur.
3010 This can be exploited in a DoS attack against the server.
3012 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3013 <reported source=" David Ramos (Stanford University)" date="20150226"/>
3016 <issue public="20150319">
3017 <cve name="2015-0290"/>
3018 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3019 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3020 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3023 Multiblock corrupted pointer.
3024 OpenSSL 1.0.2 introduced the "multiblock" performance improvement. This feature
3025 only applies on 64 bit x86 architecture platforms that support AES NI
3026 instructions. A defect in the implementation of "multiblock" can cause OpenSSL's
3027 internal write buffer to become incorrectly set to NULL when using non-blocking
3028 IO. Typically, when the user application is using a socket BIO for writing, this
3029 will only result in a failed connection. However if some other BIO is used then
3030 it is likely that a segmentation fault will be triggered, thus enabling a
3031 potential DoS attack.
3033 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3034 <reported source="Daniel Danner and Rainer Mueller" date="20150213"/>
3037 <issue public="20150319">
3038 <cve name="2015-0207"/>
3039 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3040 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3041 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3044 Segmentation fault in DTLSv1_listen.
3045 A defect in the implementation of DTLSv1_listen means that state is preserved in
3046 the SSL object from one invocation to the next that can lead to a segmentation
3047 fault. Errors processing the initial ClientHello can trigger this scenario. An
3048 example of such an error could be that a DTLS1.0 only client is attempting to
3049 connect to a DTLS1.2 only server.
3051 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3052 <reported source="Per Allansson" date="20150127"/>
3055 <issue public="20150319">
3056 <cve name="2015-0286"/>
3057 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3058 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3059 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3060 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3061 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3062 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3063 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3064 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3065 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3066 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3067 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3068 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3069 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3070 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3071 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3072 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3073 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3074 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3075 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3076 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3077 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3078 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3079 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3080 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3081 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3082 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3083 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3084 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3085 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3086 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3087 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3088 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3089 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3090 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3091 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3092 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3093 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3094 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3097 Segmentation fault in ASN1_TYPE_cmp.
3098 The function ASN1_TYPE_cmp will crash with an invalid read if an attempt is
3099 made to compare ASN.1 boolean types. Since ASN1_TYPE_cmp is used to check
3100 certificate signature algorithm consistency this can be used to crash any
3101 certificate verification operation and exploited in a DoS attack. Any
3102 application which performs certificate verification is vulnerable including
3103 OpenSSL clients and servers which enable client authentication.
3105 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3106 <reported source="Stephen Henson (OpenSSL development team)"/>
3109 <issue public="20150319">
3110 <cve name="2015-0208"/>
3111 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3112 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3113 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3116 Segmentation fault for invalid PSS parameters.
3117 The signature verification routines will crash with a NULL pointer
3118 dereference if presented with an ASN.1 signature using the RSA PSS
3119 algorithm and invalid parameters. Since these routines are used to verify
3120 certificate signature algorithms this can be used to crash any
3121 certificate verification operation and exploited in a DoS attack. Any
3122 application which performs certificate verification is vulnerable including
3123 OpenSSL clients and servers which enable client authentication.
3125 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3126 <reported source="Brian Carpenter" date="20150131"/>
3129 <issue public="20150319">
3130 <cve name="2015-0287"/>
3131 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3132 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3133 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3134 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3135 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3136 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3137 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3138 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3139 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3140 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3141 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3142 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3143 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3144 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3145 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3146 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3147 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3148 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3149 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3150 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3151 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3152 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3153 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3154 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3155 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3156 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3157 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3158 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3159 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3160 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3161 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3162 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3163 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3164 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3165 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3166 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3167 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3168 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3169 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3170 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3171 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3172 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3173 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3174 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3175 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3176 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3177 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3178 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3179 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3180 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3181 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3182 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3183 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3184 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3185 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3186 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3187 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3188 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3189 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3190 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3191 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3192 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3193 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3194 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3195 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3196 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3197 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3200 ASN.1 structure reuse memory corruption.
3201 Reusing a structure in ASN.1 parsing may allow an attacker to cause
3202 memory corruption via an invalid write. Such reuse is and has been
3203 strongly discouraged and is believed to be rare.
3205 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3206 <reported source="Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL development team)"/>
3209 <issue public="20150319">
3210 <cve name="2015-0289"/>
3211 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3212 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3213 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3214 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3215 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3216 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3217 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3218 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3219 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3220 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3221 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3222 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3223 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3224 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3225 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3226 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3227 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3228 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3229 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3230 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3231 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3232 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3233 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3234 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3235 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3236 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3237 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3238 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3239 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3240 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3241 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3242 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3243 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3244 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3245 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3246 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3247 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3248 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3249 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3250 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3251 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3252 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3253 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3254 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3255 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3256 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3257 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3258 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3259 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3260 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3261 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3262 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3263 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3264 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3265 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3266 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3267 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3268 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3269 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3270 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3271 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3272 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3273 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3274 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3275 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3276 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3277 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3280 PKCS#7 NULL pointer dereference.
3281 The PKCS#7 parsing code does not handle missing outer ContentInfo correctly.
3282 An attacker can craft malformed ASN.1-encoded PKCS#7 blobs with
3283 missing content and trigger a NULL pointer dereference on parsing.
3284 Applications that verify PKCS#7 signatures, decrypt PKCS#7 data or
3285 otherwise parse PKCS#7 structures from untrusted sources are
3286 affected. OpenSSL clients and servers are not affected.
3288 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3289 <reported source="Michal Zalewski (Google)" date="20150216"/>
3292 <issue public="20150319">
3293 <cve name="2015-0292"/>
3294 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3295 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3296 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3297 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3298 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3299 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3300 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3301 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3302 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3303 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3304 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3305 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3306 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3307 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3308 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3309 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3310 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3311 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3312 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3313 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3314 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3315 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3316 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3317 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3318 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3319 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3320 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3321 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3322 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3323 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3324 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3325 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3326 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3327 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3328 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3329 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3330 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3331 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3332 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3333 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3334 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3335 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3336 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3337 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3338 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3339 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3340 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3341 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605"/>
3342 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605"/>
3343 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605"/>
3346 A vulnerability existed in previous versions of OpenSSL related to the
3347 processing of base64 encoded data. Any code path that reads base64 data from an
3348 untrusted source could be affected (such as the PEM processing routines).
3349 Maliciously crafted base 64 data could trigger a segmenation fault or memory
3352 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3353 <reported source="Robert Dugal, also David Ramos, also Huzaifa Sidhpurwala (Red Hat)"/>
3356 <issue public="20150319">
3357 <cve name="2015-0293"/>
3358 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3359 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3360 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3361 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3362 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3363 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3364 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3365 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3366 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3367 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3368 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3369 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3370 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3371 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3372 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3373 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3374 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3375 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3376 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3377 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3378 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3379 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3380 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3381 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3382 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3383 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3384 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3385 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3386 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3387 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3388 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3389 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3390 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3391 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3392 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3393 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3394 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3395 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3396 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3397 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3398 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3399 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3400 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3401 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3402 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3403 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3404 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3405 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3406 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3407 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3408 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3409 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3410 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3411 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3412 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3413 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3414 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3415 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3416 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3417 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3418 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3419 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3420 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3421 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3422 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3423 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3424 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3427 DoS via reachable assert in SSLv2 servers.
3428 A malicious client can trigger an OPENSSL_assert in
3429 servers that both support SSLv2 and enable export cipher suites by sending
3430 a specially crafted SSLv2 CLIENT-MASTER-KEY message.
3432 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3433 <reported source="Sean Burford (Google) and Emilia Käsper (OpenSSL development team)"/>
3436 <issue public="20150319">
3437 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3438 <cve name="2015-1787"/>
3439 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3440 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3443 Empty CKE with client auth and DHE.
3444 If client auth is used then a server can seg fault in the event of a DHE
3445 ciphersuite being selected and a zero length ClientKeyExchange message being
3446 sent by the client. This could be exploited in a DoS attack.
3448 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3449 <reported source="Matt Caswell (OpenSSL development team)"/>
3452 <issue public="20150310">
3453 <impact severity="Low"/>
3454 <cve name="2015-0285"/>
3455 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3456 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3459 Under certain conditions an OpenSSL 1.0.2 client can complete a handshake with
3460 an unseeded PRNG. If the handshake succeeds then the client random that has been used will have
3461 been generated from a PRNG with insufficient entropy and therefore the output
3464 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3465 <reported source="Matt Caswell (OpenSSL development team)"/>
3468 <issue public="20150319">
3469 <impact severity="Low"/>
3470 <cve name="2015-0209"/>
3471 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3472 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3473 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3474 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3475 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3476 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3477 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3478 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3479 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3480 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3481 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3482 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3483 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3484 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3485 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3486 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3487 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3488 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3489 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3490 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3491 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3492 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3493 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3494 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3495 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3496 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3497 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3498 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3499 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3500 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3501 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3502 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3503 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3504 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3505 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3506 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3507 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3508 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3509 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3510 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3511 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3512 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3513 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3514 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3515 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3516 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3517 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3518 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3519 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3520 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3521 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3522 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3523 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3524 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3525 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3526 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3527 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3528 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3529 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3530 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3531 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3532 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3533 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3534 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3535 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3536 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3539 Use After Free following d2i_ECPrivatekey error.
3540 A malformed EC private key file consumed via the d2i_ECPrivateKey function could
3541 cause a use after free condition. This, in turn, could cause a double
3542 free in several private key parsing functions (such as d2i_PrivateKey
3543 or EVP_PKCS82PKEY) and could lead to a DoS attack or memory corruption
3544 for applications that receive EC private keys from untrusted
3545 sources. This scenario is considered rare.
3547 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3548 <reported source="The BoringSSL project"/>
3551 <issue public="20150302">
3552 <cve name="2015-0288"/>
3553 <impact severity="Low"/>
3554 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3555 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3556 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3557 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3558 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3559 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3560 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3561 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3562 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3563 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3564 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3565 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3566 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3567 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3568 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3569 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3570 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3571 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3572 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3573 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3574 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3575 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3576 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3577 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3578 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3579 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3580 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3581 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3582 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3583 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd"/>
3584 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8ze"/>
3585 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3586 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3587 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3588 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3589 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3590 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3591 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3592 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3593 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3594 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3595 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3596 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3597 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3598 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3599 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3600 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p"/>
3601 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0q"/>
3602 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3603 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3604 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3605 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3606 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3607 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3608 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3609 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3610 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3611 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3612 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3613 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k"/>
3614 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1l"/>
3615 <affects base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2"/>
3616 <fixed base="1.0.2" version="1.0.2a" date="20150319"/>
3617 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1m" date="20150319"/>
3618 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0r" date="20150319"/>
3619 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zf" date="20150319"/>
3622 X509_to_X509_REQ NULL pointer deref.
3623 The function X509_to_X509_REQ will crash with a NULL pointer dereference if
3624 the certificate key is invalid. This function is rarely used in practice.
3626 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150319.txt"/>
3627 <reported source="Brian Carpenter"/>
3630 <issue public="20150108">
3631 <cve name="2015-0206"/>
3632 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3633 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3634 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3635 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3636 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3637 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3638 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3639 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3640 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3641 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3642 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3643 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3644 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3645 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3646 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3647 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3648 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3649 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3650 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3651 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3652 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3653 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3654 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3655 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3656 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3657 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3658 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3659 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3660 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3663 A memory leak can occur in the dtls1_buffer_record function under certain
3664 conditions. In particular this could occur if an attacker sent repeated
3665 DTLS records with the same sequence number but for the next epoch. The
3666 memory leak could be exploited by an attacker in a Denial of Service
3667 attack through memory exhaustion.
3669 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3670 <reported source="Chris Mueller"/>
3673 <issue public="20141021">
3674 <cve name="2014-3569"/>
3675 <impact severity="Low"/>
3676 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3677 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3678 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3679 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3680 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3681 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3684 When openssl is built with the no-ssl3 option and a SSL v3 ClientHello is
3685 received the ssl method would be set to NULL which could later result in
3686 a NULL pointer dereference.
3688 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3689 <reported source="Frank Schmirler"/>
3692 <issue public="20150105">
3693 <cve name="2014-3572"/>
3694 <impact severity="Low"/>
3695 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3698 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3699 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3700 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3701 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3702 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3703 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3704 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3705 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3706 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3707 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3708 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3709 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3710 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3711 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3712 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3713 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3714 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3715 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3716 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3717 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3718 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3719 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3720 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3721 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3722 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3723 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3724 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3725 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3726 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3727 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3728 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3729 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3730 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3731 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3732 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3733 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3734 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3735 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3736 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3737 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3738 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3739 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3740 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3741 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3742 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3743 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3744 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3745 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3746 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3747 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3748 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3749 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3750 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3751 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3752 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3755 An OpenSSL client will accept a handshake using an ephemeral ECDH
3756 ciphersuite using an ECDSA certificate if the server key exchange message
3757 is omitted. This effectively removes forward secrecy from the ciphersuite.
3759 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3760 <reported source="Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA"/>
3763 <issue public="20150105">
3764 <cve name="2014-3571"/>
3765 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
3766 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3767 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3768 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3769 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3770 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3771 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3772 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3773 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3774 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3775 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3776 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3777 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3778 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3779 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3780 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3781 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3782 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3783 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3784 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3785 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3786 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3787 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3788 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3789 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3790 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3791 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3792 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3793 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3794 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3795 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3796 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3797 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3798 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3799 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3800 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3801 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3802 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3803 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3804 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3805 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3806 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3807 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3808 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3809 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
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 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3820 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3821 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3822 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3823 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3826 A carefully crafted DTLS message can cause a segmentation fault in OpenSSL due
3827 to a NULL pointer dereference. This could lead to a Denial Of Service attack.
3829 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3830 <reported source="Markus Stenberg of Cisco Systems, Inc"/>
3833 <issue public="20150106">
3834 <cve name="2015-0204"/>
3835 <impact severity="Low"/>
3836 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3837 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3838 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3839 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3840 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3841 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3842 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3843 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3844 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3845 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3846 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3847 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3848 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3849 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3850 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3851 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3852 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3853 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3854 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3855 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3856 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3857 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3858 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3859 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3860 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3861 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3862 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3863 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3864 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3865 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3866 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3867 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3868 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3869 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3870 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3871 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3872 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3873 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3874 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3875 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3876 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3877 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3878 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3879 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3880 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3881 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3882 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3883 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3884 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3885 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3886 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3887 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3888 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3889 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3890 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3891 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3892 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3893 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
3896 An OpenSSL client will accept the use of an RSA temporary key in a
3897 non-export RSA key exchange ciphersuite. A server could present a weak
3898 temporary key and downgrade the security of the session.
3900 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3901 <reported source="Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA"/>
3904 <issue public="20150108">
3905 <cve name="2015-0205"/>
3906 <impact severity="Low"/>
3907 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3908 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3909 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3910 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3911 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3912 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3913 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3914 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3915 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3916 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3917 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3918 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3919 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3920 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3921 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3922 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3923 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3924 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3925 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3926 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
3927 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
3928 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
3929 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
3930 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
3931 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
3932 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
3933 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
3934 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
3937 An OpenSSL server will accept a DH certificate for client authentication
3938 without the certificate verify message. This effectively allows a client
3939 to authenticate without the use of a private key. This only affects
3940 servers which trust a client certificate authority which issues
3941 certificates containing DH keys: these are extremely rare and hardly ever
3944 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
3945 <reported source="Karthikeyan Bhargavan of the PROSECCO team at INRIA"/>
3948 <issue public="20150105">
3949 <cve name="2014-8275"/>
3950 <impact severity="Low"/>
3951 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
3952 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
3953 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
3954 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
3955 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
3956 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
3957 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
3958 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
3959 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
3960 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
3961 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
3962 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
3963 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
3964 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
3965 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
3966 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
3967 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
3968 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
3969 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
3970 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
3971 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
3972 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
3973 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
3974 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
3975 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
3976 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
3977 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
3978 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
3979 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
3980 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
3981 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
3982 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
3983 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
3984 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
3985 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
3986 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
3987 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
3988 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
3989 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
3990 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
3991 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
3992 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
3993 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
3994 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
3995 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
3996 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
3997 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
3998 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
3999 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4000 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4001 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4002 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4003 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4004 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
4005 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
4006 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
4007 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
4008 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
4011 OpenSSL accepts several non-DER-variations of certificate signature
4012 algorithm and signature encodings. OpenSSL also does not enforce a
4013 match between the signature algorithm between the signed and unsigned
4014 portions of the certificate. By modifying the contents of the
4015 signature algorithm or the encoding of the signature, it is possible
4016 to change the certificate's fingerprint.
4018 This does not allow an attacker to forge certificates, and does not
4019 affect certificate verification or OpenSSL servers/clients in any other
4020 way. It also does not affect common revocation mechanisms. Only custom
4021 applications that rely on the uniqueness of the fingerprint (e.g.
4022 certificate blacklists) may be affected.
4024 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
4025 <reported source="Antti Karjalainen and Tuomo Untinen from the Codenomicon CROSS program/Konrad Kraszewski from Google"/>
4028 <issue public="20150108">
4029 <cve name="2014-3570"/>
4030 <impact severity="Low"/>
4031 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4032 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4033 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4034 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4035 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4036 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4037 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4038 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4039 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4040 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4041 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4042 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4043 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4044 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4045 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4046 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4047 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4048 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4049 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4050 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4051 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4052 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4053 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4054 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4055 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4056 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4057 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4058 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
4059 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc"/>
4060 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4061 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4062 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4063 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4064 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4065 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4066 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4067 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4068 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4069 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4070 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4071 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4072 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4073 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
4074 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o"/>
4075 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4076 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4077 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4078 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4079 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4080 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4081 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4082 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4083 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4084 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
4085 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j"/>
4086 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1k" date="20150108"/>
4087 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0p" date="20150108"/>
4088 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zd" date="20150108"/>
4091 Bignum squaring (BN_sqr) may produce incorrect results on some platforms,
4092 including x86_64. This bug occurs at random with a very low probability,
4093 and is not known to be exploitable in any way, though its exact impact is
4094 difficult to determine. The following has been determined:
4096 *) The probability of BN_sqr producing an incorrect result at random is
4097 very low: 1/2^64 on the single affected 32-bit platform (MIPS) and 1/2^128
4098 on affected 64-bit platforms.
4099 *) On most platforms, RSA follows a different code path and RSA operations
4100 are not affected at all. For the remaining platforms (e.g. OpenSSL built
4101 without assembly support), pre-existing countermeasures thwart bug
4103 *) Static ECDH is theoretically affected: it is possible to construct
4104 elliptic curve points that would falsely appear to be on the given curve.
4105 However, there is no known computationally feasible way to construct such
4106 points with low order, and so the security of static ECDH private keys is
4107 believed to be unaffected.
4108 *) Other routines known to be theoretically affected are modular
4109 exponentiation, primality testing, DSA, RSA blinding, JPAKE and SRP. No
4110 exploits are known and straightforward bug attacks fail - either the
4111 attacker cannot control when the bug triggers, or no private key material
4114 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20150108.txt"/>
4115 <reported source="Pieter Wuille (Blockstream)"/>
4118 <issue public="20141015">
4119 <cve name="2014-3513"/>
4120 <impact severity="High"/>
4121 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4122 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4123 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4124 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4125 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4126 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4127 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4128 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4129 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4130 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
4131 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20141015"/>
4133 A flaw in the DTLS SRTP extension parsing code allows an attacker, who
4134 sends a carefully crafted handshake message, to cause OpenSSL to fail
4135 to free up to 64k of memory causing a memory leak. This could be
4136 exploited in a Denial Of Service attack. This issue affects OpenSSL
4137 1.0.1 server implementations for both SSL/TLS and DTLS regardless of
4138 whether SRTP is used or configured. Implementations of OpenSSL that
4139 have been compiled with OPENSSL_NO_SRTP defined are not affected.
4141 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20141015.txt"/>
4142 <reported source="LibreSSL project"/>
4145 <issue public="20141015">
4146 <cve name="2014-3567"/>
4147 <impact severity="Moderate"/>
4148 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4149 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4150 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4151 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4152 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4153 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4154 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4155 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4156 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4157 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4158 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4159 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4160 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4161 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4162 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4163 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4164 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4165 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4166 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4167 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4168 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
4169 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4170 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4171 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4172 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4173 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4174 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4175 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4176 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4177 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4178 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4179 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4180 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4181 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4182 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
4183 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4184 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4185 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4186 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4187 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4188 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4189 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4190 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4191 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4192 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
4193 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20140806"/>
4194 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o" date="20140806"/>
4195 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc" date="20140806"/>
4197 When an OpenSSL SSL/TLS/DTLS server receives a session ticket the
4198 integrity of that ticket is first verified. In the event of a session
4199 ticket integrity check failing, OpenSSL will fail to free memory
4200 causing a memory leak. By sending a large number of invalid session
4201 tickets an attacker could exploit this issue in a Denial Of Service
4204 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20141015.txt"/>
4206 <issue public="20141015">
4207 <cve name=""/> <!-- this is deliberate -->
4208 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4209 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4210 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4211 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4212 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4213 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4214 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4215 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4216 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4217 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4218 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4219 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4220 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4221 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4222 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4223 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4224 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4225 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4226 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4227 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4228 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4229 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4230 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4231 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4232 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4233 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4234 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4235 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
4236 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4237 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4238 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4239 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4240 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4241 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4242 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4243 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4244 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4245 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4246 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4247 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4248 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4249 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
4250 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4251 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4252 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4253 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4254 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4255 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4256 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4257 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4258 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4259 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
4260 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20140806"/>
4261 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o" date="20140806"/>
4262 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc" date="20140806"/>
4264 OpenSSL has added support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to allow applications
4265 to block the ability for a MITM attacker to force a protocol
4268 Some client applications (such as browsers) will reconnect using a
4269 downgraded protocol to work around interoperability bugs in older
4270 servers. This could be exploited by an active man-in-the-middle to
4271 downgrade connections to SSL 3.0 even if both sides of the connection
4272 support higher protocols. SSL 3.0 contains a number of weaknesses
4273 including POODLE (CVE-2014-3566).
4276 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-00 and
4277 https://www.openssl.org/~bodo/ssl-poodle.pdf
4281 <issue public="20141015">
4282 <cve name="2014-3568"/>
4283 <impact severity="Low"/>
4284 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4285 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4286 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4287 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4288 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4289 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4290 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4291 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4292 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4293 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4294 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4295 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4296 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4297 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4298 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4299 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4300 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4301 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4302 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4303 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4304 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4305 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4306 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4307 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4308 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4309 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4310 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4311 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb"/>
4312 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4313 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4314 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4315 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4316 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4317 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4318 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4319 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4320 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4321 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4322 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4323 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4324 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4325 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n"/>
4326 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4327 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4328 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4329 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4330 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4331 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4332 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4333 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4334 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4335 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i"/>
4336 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1j" date="20140806"/>
4337 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0o" date="20140806"/>
4338 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zc" date="20140806"/>
4341 When OpenSSL is configured with "no-ssl3" as a build option, servers
4342 could accept and complete a SSL 3.0 handshake, and clients could be
4343 configured to send them.
4345 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20141015.txt"/>
4346 <reported source="Akamai Technologies"/>
4348 <issue public="20140806">
4349 <cve name="2014-3508"/>
4350 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4351 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4352 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4353 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4354 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4355 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4356 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4357 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4358 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4359 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4360 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4361 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4362 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4363 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4364 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4365 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4366 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4367 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4368 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4369 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4370 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4371 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4372 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4373 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4374 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4375 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4376 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4377 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4378 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4379 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4380 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4381 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4382 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4383 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4384 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4385 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4386 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4387 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4388 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4389 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4390 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4391 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4392 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4393 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4394 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4395 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4396 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4397 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4398 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4399 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4401 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4403 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4406 A flaw in OBJ_obj2txt may cause pretty printing functions such as
4407 X509_name_oneline, X509_name_print_ex, to leak some information from the
4408 stack. Applications may be affected if they echo pretty printing output to the
4409 attacker. OpenSSL SSL/TLS clients and servers themselves are not affected.
4411 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4412 <reported source="Ivan Fratric (Google)"/>
4415 <issue public="20140806">
4416 <cve name="2014-5139"/>
4418 A crash was found affecting SRP ciphersuites used in a Server Hello message.
4419 The issue affects OpenSSL clients and allows a malicious server to crash
4420 the client with a null pointer dereference (read) by specifying an SRP
4421 ciphersuite even though it was not properly negotiated with the client. This
4422 could lead to a Denial of Service.
4424 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4425 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4426 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4427 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4428 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4429 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4430 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4431 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4432 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4433 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4435 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4436 <reported source="Joonas Kuorilehto and Riku Hietamäki (Codenomicon)"/>
4439 <issue public="20140806">
4440 <cve name="2014-3509"/>
4441 <description>A race condition was found in ssl_parse_serverhello_tlsext.
4442 If a multithreaded client connects to a malicious server using a resumed session
4443 and the server sends an ec point format extension, it could write up to 255 bytes
4444 to freed memory.</description>
4445 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4446 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4447 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4448 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4449 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4450 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4451 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4452 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4453 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4454 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4455 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4456 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4457 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4458 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4459 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4460 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4461 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4462 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4463 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4464 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4465 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4466 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4467 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4469 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4471 <reported source="Gabor Tyukasz (LogMeIn Inc)"/>
4472 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4475 <issue public="20140806">
4476 <cve name="2014-3505"/>
4477 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4478 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4479 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4480 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4481 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4482 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4483 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4484 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4485 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4486 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4487 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4488 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4489 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4490 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4491 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4492 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4493 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4494 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4495 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4496 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4497 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4498 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4499 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4500 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4501 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4502 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4503 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4504 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4505 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4506 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4507 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4508 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4509 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4510 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4511 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4512 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4513 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4515 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4517 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4520 A Double Free was found when processing DTLS packets.
4521 An attacker can force an error condition which causes openssl to crash whilst
4522 processing DTLS packets due to memory being freed twice. This could lead to a
4523 Denial of Service attack.
4525 <reported source="Adam Langley and Wan-Teh Chang (Google)"/>
4526 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4529 <issue public="20140806">
4530 <cve name="2014-3506"/>
4531 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4532 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4533 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4534 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4535 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4536 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4537 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4538 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4539 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4540 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4541 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4542 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4543 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4544 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4545 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4546 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4547 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4548 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4549 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4550 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4551 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4552 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4553 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4554 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4555 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4556 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4557 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4558 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4559 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4560 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4561 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4562 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4563 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4564 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4565 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4566 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4567 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4568 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4569 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4570 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4571 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4572 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4573 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4574 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4575 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4576 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4577 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4578 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4579 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4580 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4582 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4584 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4587 A DTLS flaw leading to memory exhaustion was found.
4588 An attacker can force openssl to consume large amounts of memory whilst
4589 processing DTLS handshake messages. This could lead to a Denial of
4592 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google)"/>
4593 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4596 <issue public="20140806">
4597 <cve name="2014-3507"/>
4598 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4599 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4600 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4601 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4602 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4603 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4604 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4605 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4609 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4610 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4611 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4612 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4613 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4614 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4615 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4616 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4617 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4618 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4619 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4620 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4621 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4622 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4623 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4624 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4625 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4626 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4627 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4628 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4629 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4630 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4631 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4633 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4635 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4638 A DTLS memory leak from zero-length fragments was found.
4639 By sending carefully crafted DTLS packets an attacker could cause OpenSSL to
4640 leak memory. This could lead to a Denial of Service attack.
4642 <reported source="Adam Langley (Google)"/>
4643 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4646 <issue public="20140806">
4647 <cve name="2014-3510"/>
4648 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
4649 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
4650 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
4651 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
4652 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
4653 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
4654 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
4655 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
4656 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
4657 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
4658 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
4659 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
4660 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
4661 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
4662 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
4663 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
4664 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
4665 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
4666 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
4667 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
4668 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
4669 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
4670 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
4671 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
4672 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
4673 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
4674 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za"/>
4675 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
4676 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
4677 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
4678 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
4679 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
4680 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
4681 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
4682 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
4683 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
4684 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
4685 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
4686 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
4687 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m"/>
4688 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4689 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4690 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4691 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4692 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4693 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4694 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4695 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4696 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4697 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4699 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0n" date="20140806">
4701 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8zb" date="20140806">
4704 A flaw in handling DTLS anonymous EC(DH) ciphersuites was found.
4705 OpenSSL DTLS clients enabling anonymous (EC)DH ciphersuites are subject to a
4706 denial of service attack. A malicious server can crash the client with a null
4707 pointer dereference (read) by specifying an anonymous (EC)DH ciphersuite and
4708 sending carefully crafted handshake messages.
4710 <reported source="Felix Gröbert (Google)"/>
4711 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4714 <issue public="20140806">
4715 <cve name="2014-3511"/>
4716 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4717 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4718 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4719 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4720 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4721 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4722 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4723 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4724 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4725 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4728 A flaw in the OpenSSL SSL/TLS server code causes the server to negotiate
4729 TLS 1.0 instead of higher protocol versions when the ClientHello message is
4730 badly fragmented. This allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to force a
4731 downgrade to TLS 1.0 even if both the server and the client support a higher
4732 protocol version, by modifying the client's TLS records.
4734 <reported source="David Benjamin and Adam Langley (Google)"/>
4735 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4738 <issue public="20140806">
4739 <cve name="2014-3512"/>
4740 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
4741 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
4742 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
4743 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
4744 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
4745 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
4746 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
4747 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
4748 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h"/>
4749 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1i" date="20140806">
4752 A SRP buffer overrun was found.
4753 A malicious client or server can send invalid SRP parameters and overrun
4754 an internal buffer. Only applications which are explicitly set up for SRP
4757 <reported source="Sean Devlin and Watson Ladd (Cryptography Services, NCC Group)"/>
4758 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140806.txt"/>
4761 <issue public="20020730">
4762 <cve name="2002-0655"/>
4763 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4764 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4765 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4766 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4767 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4768 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e" date="20020730"/>
4769 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4770 <reported source="OpenSSL Group (A.L. Digital)"/>
4772 Inproper handling of ASCII representations of integers on
4773 64 bit platforms allowed remote attackers to cause a denial of
4774 service or possibly execute arbitrary code.
4778 <issue public="20020730">
4779 <cve name="2002-0656"/>
4780 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4781 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4782 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4783 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4784 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4785 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e" date="20020730"/>
4786 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4787 <reported source="OpenSSL Group (A.L. Digital)"/>
4789 A buffer overflow allowed remote attackers to execute
4790 arbitrary code by sending a large client master key in SSL2 or a
4791 large session ID in SSL3.
4795 <issue public="20020730">
4796 <cve name="2002-0657"/>
4797 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4798 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7-beta3"/>
4799 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7" date="20021210"/>
4800 <reported source="OpenSSL Group (A.L. Digital)"/>
4802 A buffer overflow when Kerberos is enabled allowed attackers
4803 to execute arbitrary code by sending a long master key. Note that this
4804 flaw did not affect any released version of 0.9.6 or 0.9.7
4808 <issue public="20020730">
4809 <cve name="2002-0659"/>
4810 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20020730.txt"/>
4811 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4812 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4813 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4814 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4815 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e" date="20020730"/>
4817 A flaw in the ASN1 library allowed remote attackers to cause a denial of
4818 service by sending invalid encodings.
4822 <issue public="20020808">
4823 <cve name="2002-1568"/>
4824 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4825 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f" date="20020808">
4826 <git hash="517a0e7fa0f5453c860a3aec17b678bd55d5aad7"/>
4829 The use of assertions when detecting buffer overflow attacks
4830 allowed remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) by
4831 sending certain messages to cause
4832 OpenSSL to abort from a failed assertion, as demonstrated using SSLv2
4833 CLIENT_MASTER_KEY messages, which were not properly handled in
4838 <issue public="20030219">
4839 <cve name="2003-0078"/>
4840 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4841 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4842 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4843 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4844 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4845 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4846 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4847 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4848 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4849 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4850 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a" date="20030219"/>
4851 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i" date="20030219"/>
4852 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030219.txt"/>
4854 sl3_get_record in s3_pkt.c did not perform a MAC computation if an
4855 incorrect block cipher padding was used, causing an information leak
4856 (timing discrepancy) that may make it easier to launch cryptographic
4857 attacks that rely on distinguishing between padding and MAC
4858 verification errors, possibly leading to extraction of the original
4859 plaintext, aka the "Vaudenay timing attack."
4863 <issue public="20030319">
4864 <cve name="2003-0131"/>
4865 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4866 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4867 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4868 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4869 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4870 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4871 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4872 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4873 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4874 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4875 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4876 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4877 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j" date="20030410"/>
4878 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b" date="20030410"/>
4879 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030319.txt"/>
4881 The SSL and TLS components allowed remote attackers to perform an
4882 unauthorized RSA private key operation via a modified Bleichenbacher
4883 attack that uses a large number of SSL or TLS connections using PKCS #1
4884 v1.5 padding that caused OpenSSL to leak information regarding the
4885 relationship between ciphertext and the associated plaintext, aka the
4886 "Klima-Pokorny-Rosa attack"
4890 <issue public="20030314">
4891 <cve name="2003-0147"/>
4892 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4893 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4894 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4895 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4896 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4897 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4898 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4899 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4900 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4901 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4902 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4903 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4904 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030317.txt"/>
4905 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b" date="20030410"/>
4906 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j" date="20030410"/>
4908 RSA blinding was not enabled by default, which could allow local and
4909 remote attackers to obtain a server's private key by determining
4910 factors using timing differences on (1) the number of extra reductions
4911 during Montgomery reduction, and (2) the use of different integer
4912 multiplication algorithms ("Karatsuba" and normal).
4916 <issue public="20030930">
4917 <cve name="2003-0543"/>
4918 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4919 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4920 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4921 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4922 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4923 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4924 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4925 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4926 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4927 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4928 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4929 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4930 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4931 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4932 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c" date="20030930"/>
4933 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k" date="20030930"/>
4934 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030930.txt"/>
4935 <reported source="NISCC"/>
4937 An integer overflow could allow remote attackers to cause a denial of
4938 service (crash) via an SSL client certificate with certain ASN.1 tag
4943 <issue public="20030930">
4944 <cve name="2003-0544"/>
4945 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4946 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4947 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4948 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
4949 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
4950 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
4951 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
4952 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
4953 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
4954 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
4955 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
4956 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
4957 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
4958 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
4959 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k" date="20030930"/>
4960 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c" date="20030930"/>
4961 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030930.txt"/>
4962 <reported source="NISCC"/>
4964 Incorrect tracking of the number of characters in certain
4965 ASN.1 inputs could allow remote attackers to cause a denial of
4966 service (crash) by sending an SSL client certificate that causes OpenSSL to
4967 read past the end of a buffer when the long form is used.
4971 <issue public="20030930">
4972 <cve name="2003-0545"/>
4973 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
4974 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
4975 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
4976 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c" date="20030930"/>
4977 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030930.txt"/>
4978 <reported source="NISCC"/>
4980 Certain ASN.1 encodings that were rejected as invalid by the parser could
4981 trigger a bug in the deallocation of the corresponding data structure,
4982 corrupting the stack, leading to a crash.
4986 <issue public="20031104">
4987 <cve name="2003-0851"/>
4988 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
4989 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l" date="20031104"/>
4990 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20031104.txt"/>
4991 <reported source="Novell"/>
4993 A flaw in OpenSSL 0.9.6k (only) would cause certain ASN.1 sequences to
4994 trigger a large recursion. On platforms such as Windows this large
4995 recursion cannot be handled correctly and so the bug causes OpenSSL to
4996 crash. A remote attacker could exploit this flaw if they can send
4997 arbitrary ASN.1 sequences which would cause OpenSSL to crash. This
4998 could be performed for example by sending a client certificate to a
4999 SSL/TLS enabled server which is configured to accept them.
5003 <issue public="20040317">
5004 <cve name="2004-0079"/>
5005 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5006 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5007 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5008 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5009 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5010 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5011 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5012 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5013 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5014 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5015 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5016 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5017 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5018 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5019 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d" date="20040317"/>
5020 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m" date="20040317"/>
5021 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20040317.txt"/>
5022 <reported source="OpenSSL group"/>
5024 The Codenomicon TLS Test Tool uncovered a null-pointer assignment in the
5025 do_change_cipher_spec() function. A remote attacker could perform a
5026 carefully crafted SSL/TLS handshake against a server that used the
5027 OpenSSL library in such a way as to cause a crash.
5031 <issue public="20040317">
5032 <cve name="2004-0081"/>
5033 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5034 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5035 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5036 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5037 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d" date="20020603"/> <!-- guessed date -->
5039 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20030317.txt"/>
5040 <reported source="OpenSSL group"/>
5042 The Codenomicon TLS Test Tool found that some unknown message types
5043 were handled incorrectly, allowing a remote attacker to cause a denial
5044 of service (infinite loop).
5048 <issue public="20040317">
5049 <cve name="2004-0112"/>
5050 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5051 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5052 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5053 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d" date="20040317"/>
5054 <reported source="OpenSSL group (Stephen Henson)"/>
5055 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20040317.txt"/>
5057 A flaw in SSL/TLS handshaking code when using Kerberos ciphersuites.
5058 A remote attacker could perform a carefully crafted SSL/TLS handshake
5059 against a server configured to use Kerberos ciphersuites in such a way
5060 as to cause OpenSSL to crash. Most applications have no ability to
5061 use Kerberos ciphersuites and will therefore be unaffected.
5065 <issue public="20040930">
5066 <cve name="2004-0975"/>
5067 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5068 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5069 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5070 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5071 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5072 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5073 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5074 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5075 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5076 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5077 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5078 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5079 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5080 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5081 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5082 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5083 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5084 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5085 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5086 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
5087 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f" date="20050322">
5088 <git hash="5fee606442a6738fd06a756d7076be53b7b7734c"/>
5090 <fixed base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6-cvs" date="20041114"/>
5091 <!-- der_chop was removed 20041114 -->
5094 The der_chop script created temporary files insecurely which could
5095 allow local users to overwrite files via a symlink attack on temporary
5096 files. Note that it is quite unlikely that a user would be using the
5097 redundant der_chop script, and this script was removed from the OpenSSL
5102 <issue public="20051011">
5103 <cve name="2005-2969"/>
5104 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5105 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5106 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5107 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5108 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5109 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5110 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
5111 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
5112 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5113 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5114 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5115 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5116 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5117 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5118 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5119 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5120 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5121 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5122 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5123 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5124 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5125 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5126 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
5127 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h" date="20051011"/>
5128 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a" date="20051011"/>
5130 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20051011.txt"/>
5131 <reported source="researcher"/>
5134 A deprecated option, SSL_OP_MISE_SSLV2_RSA_PADDING, could allow an
5135 attacker acting as a "man in the middle" to force a connection to
5136 downgrade to SSL 2.0 even if both parties support better protocols.
5140 <issue public="20060905">
5141 <cve name="2006-4339"/>
5142 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5143 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5144 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5145 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5146 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5147 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5148 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
5149 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
5150 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
5151 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
5152 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
5153 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5154 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5155 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5156 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5157 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5158 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5159 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5160 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5161 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5162 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5163 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5164 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5165 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5166 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5167 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5168 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5169 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
5170 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k" date="20060905"/>
5171 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c" date="20060905"/>
5173 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060905.txt"/>
5174 <reported source="openssl"/>
5177 Daniel Bleichenbacher discovered an attack on PKCS #1 v1.5
5178 signatures where under certain circumstances it may be possible
5179 for an attacker to forge a PKCS #1 v1.5 signature that would be incorrectly
5180 verified by OpenSSL.
5184 <issue public="20060928">
5185 <cve name="2006-2937"/>
5186 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5187 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5188 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5189 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5190 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5191 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5192 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
5193 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
5194 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
5195 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
5196 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
5197 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
5198 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5199 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5200 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5201 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5202 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
5203 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
5205 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
5206 <reported source="openssl"/>
5209 During the parsing of certain invalid ASN.1 structures an error
5210 condition is mishandled. This can result in an infinite loop which
5211 consumes system memory
5215 <issue public="20060928">
5216 <cve name="2006-2940"/>
5217 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5218 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5219 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5220 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5221 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5222 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5223 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
5224 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
5225 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
5226 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
5227 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
5228 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
5229 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5230 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5231 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5232 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5233 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5234 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5235 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5236 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5237 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5238 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5239 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5240 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5241 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5242 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5243 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5244 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5245 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5246 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
5247 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
5248 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
5250 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
5251 <reported source="openssl"/>
5254 Certain types of public key can take disproportionate amounts of
5255 time to process. This could be used by an attacker in a denial of
5260 <issue public="20060928">
5261 <cve name="2006-3738"/>
5262 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5263 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5264 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5265 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5266 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5267 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5268 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
5269 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
5270 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
5271 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
5272 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
5273 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
5274 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5275 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5276 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5277 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5278 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5279 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5280 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5281 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5282 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5283 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5284 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5285 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5286 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5287 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5288 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5289 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5290 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5291 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
5292 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
5293 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
5295 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
5296 <reported source="openssl"/>
5299 A buffer overflow was discovered in the SSL_get_shared_ciphers()
5300 utility function. An attacker could send a list of ciphers to an
5301 application that uses this function and overrun a buffer.
5305 <issue public="20060928">
5306 <cve name="2006-4343"/>
5307 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7"/>
5308 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7a"/>
5309 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7b"/>
5310 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7c"/>
5311 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7d"/>
5312 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7e"/>
5313 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7f"/>
5314 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7g"/>
5315 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7h"/>
5316 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7i"/>
5317 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7j"/>
5318 <affects base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7k"/>
5319 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5320 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5321 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5322 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5323 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6"/>
5324 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6a"/>
5325 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6b"/>
5326 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6c"/>
5327 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6d"/>
5328 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6e"/>
5329 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6f"/>
5330 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6g"/>
5331 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6h"/>
5332 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6i"/>
5333 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6j"/>
5334 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6k"/>
5335 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6l"/>
5336 <affects base="0.9.6" version="0.9.6m"/>
5337 <fixed base="0.9.7" version="0.9.7l" date="20060928"/>
5338 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d" date="20060928"/>
5340 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20060928.txt"/>
5341 <reported source="openssl"/>
5344 A flaw in the SSLv2 client code was discovered. When a client
5345 application used OpenSSL to create an SSLv2 connection to a malicious
5346 server, that server could cause the client to crash.
5350 <issue public="20071012">
5351 <cve name="2007-4995"/>
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 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f" date="20071012"/>
5359 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20071012.txt"/>
5360 <reported source="Andy Polyakov"/>
5363 A flaw in DTLS support. An attacker
5364 could create a malicious client or server that could trigger a heap
5365 overflow. This is possibly exploitable to run arbitrary code, but it has
5370 <issue public="20071012">
5371 <cve name="2007-5135"/>
5372 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5373 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5374 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5375 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5376 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5377 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5378 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f" date="20071012"/>
5379 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20071012.txt"/>
5380 <reported source="Moritz Jodeit"/>
5383 A flaw was found in the SSL_get_shared_ciphers() utility function. An
5384 attacker could send a list of ciphers to an application that used this
5385 function and overrun a buffer with a single byte. Few
5386 applications make use of this vulnerable function and generally it is used
5387 only when applications are compiled for debugging.
5391 <issue public="20071129">
5392 <cve name="2007-5502"/>
5393 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20071129.txt"/>
5394 <reported source="Geoff Lowe"/>
5395 <affects base="fips-1.1" version="fips-1.1.1"/>
5396 <fixed base="fips-1.1" version="fips-1.1.2" date="20071201"/>
5398 The PRNG implementation for the OpenSSL FIPS Object Module 1.1.1 does
5399 not perform auto-seeding during the FIPS self-test, which generates
5400 random data that is more predictable than expected and makes it easier
5401 for attackers to bypass protection mechanisms that rely on the
5406 <issue public="20080528">
5407 <cve name="2008-0891"/>
5408 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5409 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5410 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h" date="20080528"/>
5411 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20080528.txt"/>
5412 <reported source="codenomicon"/>
5414 Testing using the Codenomicon TLS test suite discovered a flaw in the
5415 handling of server name extension data in OpenSSL 0.9.8f and OpenSSL
5416 0.9.8g. If OpenSSL has been compiled using the non-default TLS server
5417 name extensions, a remote attacker could send a carefully crafted
5418 packet to a server application using OpenSSL and cause it to crash.
5422 <issue public="20080528">
5423 <cve name="2008-1672"/>
5424 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5425 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5426 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h" date="20080528"/>
5427 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20080528.txt"/>
5428 <reported source="codenomicon"/>
5430 Testing using the Codenomicon TLS test suite discovered a flaw if the
5431 'Server Key exchange message' is omitted from a TLS handshake in
5432 OpenSSL 0.9.8f and OpenSSL 0.9.8g. If a client connects to a
5433 malicious server with particular cipher suites, the server could cause
5434 the client to crash.
5438 <issue public="20090107">
5439 <cve name="2008-5077"/>
5440 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5441 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5442 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5443 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5444 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5445 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5446 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5447 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5448 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5449 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5450 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j" date="20090107"/>
5451 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090107.txt"/>
5452 <reported source="google"/>
5455 The Google Security Team discovered several functions inside OpenSSL
5456 incorrectly checked the result after calling the EVP_VerifyFinal
5457 function, allowing a malformed signature to be treated as a good
5458 signature rather than as an error. This issue affected the signature
5459 checks on DSA and ECDSA keys used with SSL/TLS. One way to exploit
5460 this flaw would be for a remote attacker who is in control of a
5461 malicious server or who can use a 'man in the middle' attack to
5462 present a malformed SSL/TLS signature from a certificate chain to a
5463 vulnerable client, bypassing validation.
5467 <issue public="20090325">
5468 <cve name="2009-0590"/>
5469 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5470 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5471 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5472 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5473 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5474 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5475 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5476 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5477 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5478 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5479 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5480 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k" date="20090325"/>
5481 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090325.txt"/>
5483 The function ASN1_STRING_print_ex() when used to print a BMPString or
5484 UniversalString will crash with an invalid memory access if the
5485 encoded length of the string is illegal. Any OpenSSL application
5486 which prints out the contents of a certificate could be affected by
5487 this bug, including SSL servers, clients and S/MIME software.
5491 <issue public="20090325">
5492 <cve name="2009-0591"/>
5493 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5494 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5495 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5496 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k" date="20090325"/>
5497 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090325.txt"/>
5498 <reported source="Ivan Nestlerode, IBM"/>
5500 The function CMS_verify() does not correctly handle an error condition
5501 involving malformed signed attributes. This will cause an invalid set
5502 of signed attributes to appear valid and content digests will not be
5507 <issue public="20090325">
5508 <cve name="2009-0789"/>
5509 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5510 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5511 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5512 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5513 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5514 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5515 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5516 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5517 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5518 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5519 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5520 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k" date="20090325"/>
5521 <reported source="Paolo Ganci"/>
5522 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20090325.txt"/>
5524 When a malformed ASN1 structure is received it's contents are freed up and
5525 zeroed and an error condition returned. On a small number of platforms where
5526 sizeof(long) < sizeof(void *) (for example WIN64) this can cause an invalid
5527 memory access later resulting in a crash when some invalid structures are
5528 read, for example RSA public keys.
5532 <issue public="20090602">
5533 <cve name="2009-1386"/>
5534 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5535 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5536 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5537 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5538 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5539 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5540 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5541 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5542 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5543 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i" date="20080915">
5544 <git hash="1cbf663a6c89dcf8f7706d30a8bae675e2e0199a"/>
5546 <reported source="Alex Lam"/>
5548 Fix a NULL pointer dereference if a DTLS server recieved
5549 ChangeCipherSpec as first record.
5550 A remote attacker could use this flaw to cause a DTLS server to crash
5554 <issue public="20091105">
5555 <cve name="2009-3555"/>
5556 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5557 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5558 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5559 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5560 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5561 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5562 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5563 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5564 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5565 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5566 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5567 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5568 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5569 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
5570 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20091111.txt"/>
5572 Implement RFC5746 to address vulnerabilities in SSL/TLS renegotiation.
5576 <issue public="20090205">
5577 <cve name="2009-1387"/>
5578 <advisory url="https://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1838&user=guest&pass=guest"/>
5579 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5580 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5581 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5582 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5583 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5584 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5585 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5586 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5587 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5588 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5589 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5590 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5591 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5592 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120"/>
5593 <reported source="Robin Seggelmann"/>
5595 Fix denial of service flaw due in the DTLS implementation. A
5596 remote attacker could use this flaw to cause a DTLS server to crash.
5600 <issue public="20090512">
5601 <cve name="2009-1377"/>
5602 <advisory url="https://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1930&user=guest&pass=guest"/>
5603 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5604 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5605 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5606 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5607 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5608 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5609 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5610 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5611 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5612 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5613 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5614 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5615 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5616 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120">
5617 <git hash="88b48dc68024dcc437da4296c9fb04419b0ccbe1"/>
5619 <reported source="Daniel Mentz, Robin Seggelmann"/>
5621 Fix a denial of service flaw in the DTLS implementation.
5622 Records are buffered if they arrive with a future epoch to be
5623 processed after finishing the corresponding handshake. There is
5624 currently no limitation to this buffer allowing an attacker to perform
5625 a DOS attack to a DTLS server by sending records with future epochs until there is no
5630 <issue public="20090512">
5631 <cve name="2009-1378"/>
5632 <advisory url="https://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1931&user=guest&pass=guest"/>
5633 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5634 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5635 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5636 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5637 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5638 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5639 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5640 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5641 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5642 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5643 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5644 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5645 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5646 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120">
5647 <git hash="abda7c114791fa7fe95672ec7a66fc4733c40dbc"/>
5649 <reported source="Daniel Mentz, Robin Seggelmann"/>
5651 Fix a denial of service flaw in the DTLS implementation.
5652 In dtls1_process_out_of_seq_message() the check if the current message
5653 is already buffered was missing. For every new message was memory
5654 allocated, allowing an attacker to perform an denial of service attack
5655 against a DTLS server by sending out of seq handshake messages until there is no memory
5660 <issue public="20090512">
5661 <cve name="2009-1379"/>
5662 <advisory url="https://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=1923&user=guest&pass=guest"/>
5663 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5664 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5665 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5666 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5667 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5668 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5669 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5670 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5671 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5672 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5673 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5674 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5675 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5676 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120">
5677 <git hash="561cbe567846a376153bea7f1f2d061e78029c2d"/>
5679 <reported source="Daniel Mentz, Robin Seggelmann"/>
5681 Use-after-free vulnerability in the dtls1_retrieve_buffered_fragment
5682 function could cause a client accessing a malicious DTLS server to
5687 <issue public="20100113">
5688 <cve name="2009-4355"/>
5689 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5690 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5691 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5692 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5693 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5694 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5695 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5696 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5697 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5698 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5699 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5700 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5701 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5702 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120">
5703 <git hash="1b31b5ad560b16e2fe1cad54a755e3e6b5e778a3"/>
5705 <reported source="Michael K Johnson and Andy Grimm (rPath)"/>
5707 A memory leak in the zlib_stateful_finish function in crypto/comp/c_zlib.c
5708 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service
5709 via vectors that trigger incorrect calls to the CRYPTO_cleanup_all_ex_data
5714 <issue public="20100223">
5715 <cve name="2009-3245"/>
5716 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5717 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5718 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5719 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5720 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5721 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5722 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5723 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5724 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5725 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5726 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5727 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5728 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5729 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m" date="20100120">
5730 <git hash="7e4cae1d2f555cbe9226b377aff4b56c9f7ddd4d"/>
5732 <reported source="Martin Olsson, Neel Mehta"/>
5734 It was discovered that OpenSSL did not always check the return value of the
5735 bn_wexpand() function. An attacker able to trigger a memory allocation failure
5736 in that function could cause an application using the OpenSSL library to crash
5737 or, possibly, execute arbitrary code
5741 <issue public="20100119">
5742 <cve name="2010-0433"/>
5743 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5744 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5745 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5746 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5747 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5748 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5749 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5750 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5751 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5752 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5753 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5754 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5755 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5756 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5757 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n" date="20100324">
5758 <git hash="cca1cd9a3447dd067503e4a85ebd1679ee78a48e"/>
5760 <reported source="Todd Rinaldo, Tomas Hoger (Red Hat)"/>
5762 A missing return value check flaw was discovered in OpenSSL, that could
5763 possibly cause OpenSSL to call a Kerberos library function with invalid
5764 arguments, resulting in a NULL pointer dereference crash in the MIT
5765 Kerberos library. In certain configurations, a remote attacker could use
5766 this flaw to crash a TLS/SSL server using OpenSSL by requesting Kerberos
5767 cipher suites during the TLS handshake
5771 <issue public="20100324">
5772 <cve name="2010-0740"/>
5773 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5774 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5775 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5776 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5777 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5778 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5779 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5780 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5781 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n" date="20100324"/>
5782 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20100324.txt"/>
5783 <reported source="Bodo Moeller and Adam Langley (Google)"/>
5785 In TLS connections, certain incorrectly formatted records can cause an
5786 OpenSSL client or server to crash due to a read attempt at NULL.
5790 <issue public="20100601">
5791 <cve name="2010-0742"/>
5792 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5793 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5794 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5795 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5796 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5797 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5798 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5799 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5800 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o" date="20100601"/>
5801 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a" date="20100601"/>
5802 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20100601.txt"/>
5803 <reported source="Ronald Moesbergen"/>
5805 A flaw in the handling of CMS structures containing OriginatorInfo was found which
5806 could lead to a write to invalid memory address or double free. CMS support is
5807 disabled by default in OpenSSL 0.9.8 versions.
5811 <issue public="20100601">
5812 <cve name="2010-1633"/>
5813 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5814 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a" date="20100601"/>
5815 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20100601.txt"/>
5816 <reported source="Peter-Michael Hager"/>
5818 An invalid Return value check in pkey_rsa_verifyrecover was
5819 discovered. When verification recovery fails for RSA keys an
5820 uninitialised buffer with an undefined length is returned instead of
5821 an error code. This could lead to an information leak.
5825 <issue public="20101116">
5826 <cve name="2010-3864"/>
5827 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5828 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5829 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5830 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5831 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5832 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5833 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5834 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5835 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5836 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5837 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5838 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5839 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5840 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5841 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5842 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5843 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5844 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5845 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b" date="20101116"/>
5846 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p" date="20101116"/>
5847 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20101116.txt"/>
5848 <reported source="Rob Hulswit"/>
5851 A flaw in the OpenSSL TLS server extension code parsing which on
5852 affected servers can be exploited in a buffer overrun attack. Any
5853 OpenSSL based TLS server is vulnerable if it is multi-threaded and
5854 uses OpenSSL's internal caching mechanism. Servers that are
5855 multi-process and/or disable internal session caching are NOT
5861 <issue public="20101202">
5862 <cve name="2010-4252"/>
5863 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5864 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5865 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5866 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c" date="20101202"/>
5867 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20101202.txt"/>
5868 <reported source="Sebastian Martini"/>
5870 An error in OpenSSL's experimental J-PAKE implementation which could
5871 lead to successful validation by someone with no knowledge of the
5872 shared secret. The OpenSSL Team still consider the implementation of
5873 J-PAKE to be experimental and is not compiled by default.
5877 <issue public="20101202">
5878 <cve name="2010-4180"/>
5879 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5880 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5881 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5882 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5883 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5884 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5885 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5886 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5887 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5888 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5889 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5890 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5891 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5892 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5893 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5894 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5895 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5896 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5897 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5898 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5899 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c" date="20101202"/>
5900 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q" date="20101202"/>
5901 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20101202.txt"/>
5902 <reported source="Martin Rex"/>
5904 A flaw in the OpenSSL SSL/TLS server code where an old bug workaround
5905 allows malicious clients to modify the stored session cache
5906 ciphersuite. In some cases the ciphersuite can be downgraded to a
5907 weaker one on subsequent connections. This issue only affects OpenSSL
5908 based SSL/TLS server if it uses OpenSSL's internal caching mechanisms
5909 and the SSL_OP_NETSCAPE_REUSE_CIPHER_CHANGE_BUG flag (many
5910 applications enable this by using the SSL_OP_ALL option).
5914 <issue public="20110906">
5915 <cve name="2011-3207"/>
5916 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5917 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5918 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5919 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5920 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5921 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e" date="20110906"/>
5922 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20110906.txt"/>
5923 <reported source="Kaspar Brand"/>
5925 Under certain circumstances OpenSSL's internal certificate
5926 verification routines can incorrectly accept a CRL whose nextUpdate
5927 field is in the past. Applications are only affected by the CRL
5928 checking vulnerability if they enable OpenSSL's internal CRL checking
5929 which is off by default. Applications which use their own custom CRL
5930 checking (such as Apache) are not affected.
5934 <issue public="20110906">
5935 <cve name="2011-3210"/>
5936 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5937 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5938 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5939 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5940 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5941 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5942 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5943 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5944 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5945 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5946 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5947 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5948 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5949 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5950 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5951 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5952 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5953 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5954 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5955 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5956 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5957 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5958 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5959 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5960 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e" date="20110906"/>
5961 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20110906.txt"/>
5962 <reported source="Adam Langley"/>
5964 OpenSSL server code for ephemeral ECDH ciphersuites is not
5965 thread-safe, and furthermore can crash if a client violates the
5966 protocol by sending handshake messages in incorrect order. Only
5967 server-side applications that specifically support ephemeral ECDH
5968 ciphersuites are affected, and only if ephemeral ECDH ciphersuites are
5969 enabled in the configuration.
5973 <issue public="20120104">
5974 <cve name="2011-4108"/>
5975 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
5976 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
5977 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
5978 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
5979 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
5980 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
5981 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
5982 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
5983 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
5984 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
5985 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
5986 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
5987 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
5988 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
5989 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
5990 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
5991 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
5992 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
5993 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
5994 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
5995 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
5996 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
5997 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
5998 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
5999 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6000 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
6001 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
6002 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
6003 <reported source="Nadhem Alfardan and Kenny Paterson"/>
6005 OpenSSL was susceptable an extension of the
6006 Vaudenay padding oracle attack on CBC mode encryption which enables an
6007 efficient plaintext recovery attack against the OpenSSL implementation
6008 of DTLS by exploiting timing differences arising during
6009 decryption processing.
6013 <issue public="20120104">
6014 <cve name="2011-4109"/>
6015 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6016 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6017 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6018 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6019 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6020 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6021 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6022 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6023 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6024 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6025 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6026 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6027 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6028 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6029 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6030 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6031 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6032 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6033 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6034 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
6035 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
6036 <reported source="Ben Laurie"/>
6038 If X509_V_FLAG_POLICY_CHECK is set in OpenSSL 0.9.8, then a policy
6039 check failure can lead to a double-free. The bug does not occur
6040 unless this flag is set. Users of OpenSSL 1.0.0 are not affected
6044 <issue public="20120104">
6045 <cve name="2011-4576"/>
6046 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6047 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6048 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6049 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6050 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6051 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6052 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6053 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6054 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6055 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6056 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6057 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6058 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6059 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6060 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6061 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6062 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6063 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6064 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6065 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6066 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6067 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6068 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6069 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6070 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6071 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
6072 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
6073 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
6074 <reported source="Adam Langley"/>
6076 OpenSSL failed to clear the bytes used as
6077 block cipher padding in SSL 3.0 records which could leak
6078 the contents of memory in some circumstances.
6082 <issue public="20120104">
6083 <cve name="2011-4577"/>
6084 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6085 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6086 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6087 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6088 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6089 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6090 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6091 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6092 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6093 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6094 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6095 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6096 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6097 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6098 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6099 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6100 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6101 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6102 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6103 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6104 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6105 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6106 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6107 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6108 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6109 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
6110 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
6111 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
6112 <reported source="Andrew Chi"/>
6114 RFC 3779 data can be included in certificates, and if it is malformed,
6115 may trigger an assertion failure. This could be used in a
6116 denial-of-service attack. Builds of OpenSSL are only vulnerable if configured with
6117 "enable-rfc3779", which is not a default.
6121 <issue public="20120104">
6122 <cve name="2011-4619"/>
6123 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6124 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6125 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6126 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6127 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6128 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6129 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6130 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6131 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6132 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6133 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6134 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6135 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6136 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6137 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6138 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6139 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6140 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6141 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6142 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6143 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6144 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6145 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6146 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6147 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6148 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
6149 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s" date="20120104"/>
6150 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
6151 <reported source="George Kadianakis"/>
6153 Support for handshake restarts for server gated cryptograpy (SGC) can
6154 be used in a denial-of-service attack.
6158 <issue public="20120104">
6159 <cve name="2012-0027"/>
6160 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6161 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6162 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6163 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6164 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6165 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6166 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f" date="20120104"/>
6167 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120104.txt"/>
6168 <reported source="Andrey Kulikov"/>
6170 A malicious TLS client can send an invalid set of GOST parameters
6171 which will cause the server to crash due to lack of error checking.
6172 This could be used in a denial-of-service attack.
6173 Only users of the OpenSSL GOST ENGINE are affected by this bug.
6177 <issue public="20120104">
6178 <cve name="2012-0050"/>
6179 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6180 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6181 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g" date="20120118"/>
6182 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t" date="20120118"/>
6183 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120118.txt"/>
6184 <reported source="Antonio Martin"/>
6186 A flaw in the fix to CVE-2011-4108 can be exploited in a denial of
6187 service attack. Only DTLS applications are affected.
6191 <issue public="20120312">
6192 <cve name="2012-0884"/>
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="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6215 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6216 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6217 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6218 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6219 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6220 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6221 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6222 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0h" date="20120312"/>
6223 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u" date="20120312"/>
6224 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120312.txt"/>
6225 <reported source="Ivan Nestlerode"/>
6227 A weakness in the OpenSSL CMS and PKCS #7 code can be exploited
6228 using Bleichenbacher's attack on PKCS #1 v1.5 RSA padding
6229 also known as the million message attack (MMA).
6230 Only users of CMS, PKCS #7, or S/MIME decryption operations are affected,
6231 SSL/TLS applications are not affected by this issue.
6236 <issue public="20110208">
6237 <cve name="2011-0014"/>
6238 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6239 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6240 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6241 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6242 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6243 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6244 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6245 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6246 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6247 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6248 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6249 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6250 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6251 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6252 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d" date="20110208"/>
6253 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r" date="20110208"/>
6254 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20110208.txt"/>
6255 <reported source="Neel Mehta"/>
6257 A buffer over-read flaw was discovered in the way OpenSSL parsed the
6258 Certificate Status Request TLS extensions in ClientHello TLS handshake
6259 messages. A remote attacker could possibly use this flaw to crash an SSL
6260 server using the affected OpenSSL functionality.
6264 <issue public="20120424">
6265 <cve name="2012-2131"/>
6266 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6267 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w" date="20120424"/>
6268 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120424.txt"/>
6269 <reported source="Red Hat"/>
6271 It was discovered that the fix for CVE-2012-2110 released on 19 Apr
6272 2012 was not sufficient to correct the issue for OpenSSL 0.9.8. This
6273 issue only affects OpenSSL 0.9.8v. OpenSSL 1.0.1a and 1.0.0i already
6274 contain a patch sufficient to correct CVE-2012-2110.
6279 <issue public="20120419">
6280 <cve name="2012-2110"/>
6281 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6282 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6283 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6284 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6285 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6286 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6287 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6288 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6289 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6290 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6291 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6292 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6293 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6294 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6295 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6296 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6297 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6298 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6299 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6300 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6301 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6302 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6303 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6304 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6305 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6306 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6307 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6308 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6309 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6310 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6311 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6312 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a" date="20120419"/>
6313 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i" date="20120419"/>
6314 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v" date="20120419"/>
6315 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120419.txt"/>
6316 <reported source="Tavis Ormandy"/>
6318 Multiple numeric conversion errors, leading to a buffer overflow, were
6319 found in the way OpenSSL parsed ASN.1 (Abstract Syntax Notation One) data
6320 from BIO (OpenSSL's I/O abstraction) inputs. Specially-crafted DER
6321 (Distinguished Encoding Rules) encoded data read from a file or other BIO
6322 input could cause an application using the OpenSSL library to crash or,
6323 potentially, execute arbitrary code.
6327 <issue public="20120510">
6328 <cve name="2012-2333"/>
6329 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6330 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6331 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6332 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6333 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6334 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6335 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6336 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6337 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6338 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6339 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6340 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6341 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6342 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6343 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6344 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6345 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6346 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6347 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6348 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6349 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6350 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6351 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6352 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6353 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6354 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6355 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6356 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6357 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6358 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6359 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6360 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6361 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6362 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6363 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6364 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6365 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c" date="20120510"/>
6366 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j" date="20120510"/>
6367 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x" date="20120510"/>
6368 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20120510.txt"/>
6369 <reported source="Codenomicon"/>
6371 An integer underflow flaw, leading to a buffer over-read, was found in
6372 the way OpenSSL handled TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, and DTLS (Datagram Transport
6373 Layer Security) application data record lengths when using a block
6374 cipher in CBC (cipher-block chaining) mode. A malicious TLS 1.1, TLS
6375 1.2, or DTLS client or server could use this flaw to crash its connection
6380 <issue public="20130204">
6381 <cve name="2013-0169"/>
6382 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6383 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6384 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6385 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6386 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6387 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6388 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6389 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6390 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6391 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6392 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6393 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6394 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6395 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6396 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6397 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6398 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6399 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6400 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6401 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6402 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6403 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6404 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6405 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6406 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6407 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6408 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6409 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6410 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6411 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6412 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6413 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6414 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6415 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6416 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6417 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6418 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6419 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6420 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6421 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d" date="20130205"/>
6422 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k" date="20130205"/>
6423 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y" date="20130205"/>
6424 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20130205.txt"/>
6425 <reported source="Nadhem J. AlFardan and Kenneth G. Paterson of the Information Security Group Royal Holloway, University of London"/>
6427 A weakness in the handling of CBC ciphersuites in SSL, TLS and DTLS which could
6428 lead to plaintext recovery by exploiting timing differences
6429 arising during MAC processing.
6433 <issue public="20130205">
6434 <cve name="2012-2686"/>
6435 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6436 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6437 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6438 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6439 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d" date="20130205"/>
6440 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20130205.txt"/>
6441 <reported source="Adam Langley and Wolfgang Ettlinger"/>
6443 A flaw in the OpenSSL handling of CBC ciphersuites in TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 on
6444 AES-NI supporting platforms can be exploited in a DoS attack.
6448 <issue public="20130205">
6449 <cve name="2013-0166"/>
6450 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6451 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6452 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6453 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6454 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6455 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6456 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6457 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6458 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6459 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6460 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6461 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6462 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6463 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6464 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6465 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6466 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6467 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6468 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6469 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6470 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6471 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6472 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6473 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6474 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6475 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6476 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6477 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6478 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6479 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6480 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6481 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6482 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6483 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6484 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6485 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6486 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6487 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6488 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6489 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d" date="20130205"/>
6490 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k" date="20130205"/>
6491 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y" date="20130205"/>
6492 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20130205.txt"/>
6493 <reported source="Stephen Henson"/>
6495 A flaw in the OpenSSL handling of OCSP response verification can be exploited in
6496 a denial of service attack.
6500 <issue public="20131213">
6501 <cve name="2013-6450"/>
6502 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6503 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6504 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6505 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6506 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6507 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6508 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6509 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6510 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6511 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6512 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6513 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6514 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6515 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6516 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6517 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6518 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6519 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f" date="20140106">
6520 <git hash="3462896"/>
6522 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l" date="20140106"/>
6523 <reported source="Dmitry Sobinov"/>
6525 A flaw in DTLS handling can cause an application using OpenSSL and DTLS to crash.
6526 This is not a vulnerability for OpenSSL prior to 1.0.0.
6530 <issue public="20131214">
6531 <cve name="2013-6449"/>
6532 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6533 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6534 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6535 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6536 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6537 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6538 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f" date="20140106">
6539 <git hash="ca98926"/>
6541 <reported source="Ron Barber"/>
6543 A flaw in OpenSSL can cause an application using OpenSSL to crash when using TLS version 1.2.
6544 This issue only affected OpenSSL 1.0.1 versions.
6548 <issue public="20140106">
6549 <cve name="2013-4353"/>
6550 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6551 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6552 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6553 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6554 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6555 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6556 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f" date="20140106">
6557 <git hash="197e0ea817ad64820789d86711d55ff50d71f631"/>
6559 <reported source="Anton Johansson"/>
6561 A carefully crafted invalid TLS handshake could crash OpenSSL with a NULL pointer exception. A malicious
6562 server could use this flaw to crash a connecting client. This issue only affected OpenSSL 1.0.1 versions.
6566 <issue public="20140214">
6567 <cve name="2014-0076"/>
6568 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6569 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6570 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6571 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6572 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6573 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6574 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6575 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6576 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6577 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6578 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6579 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6580 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6581 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6582 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6583 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6584 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6585 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6586 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6587 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6588 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6589 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6590 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6591 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6592 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6593 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6594 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6595 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6596 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6597 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6598 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6599 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6600 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6601 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6602 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6603 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6604 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6605 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6606 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6607 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6608 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6609 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6610 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6611 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6612 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6613 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6614 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g" date="20140409">
6615 <git hash="4b7a4ba29cafa432fc4266fe6e59e60bc1c96332"/>
6617 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140312">
6618 <git hash="2198be3483259de374f91e57d247d0fc667aef29"/>
6620 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6622 <reported source="Yuval Yarom and Naomi Benger"/>
6624 Fix for the attack described in the paper "Recovering OpenSSL
6625 ECDSA Nonces Using the FLUSH+RELOAD Cache Side-channel Attack"
6629 <issue public="20140407">
6630 <cve name="2014-0160"/>
6631 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6632 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6633 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6634 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6635 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6636 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6637 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6638 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g" date="20140409">
6640 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140407.txt"/>
6641 <reported source="Neel Mehta"/>
6643 A missing bounds check in the handling of the TLS heartbeat extension can be
6644 used to reveal up to 64kB of memory to a connected client or server (a.k.a. Heartbleed). This
6645 issue did not affect versions of OpenSSL prior to 1.0.1.
6649 <issue public="20140605">
6650 <cve name="2014-0224"/>
6651 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6652 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6653 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6654 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6655 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6656 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6657 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6658 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6659 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6660 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6661 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6662 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6663 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6664 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6665 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6666 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6667 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6668 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6669 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6670 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6671 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6672 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6673 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6674 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6675 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6676 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6677 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6678 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6679 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6680 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6681 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6682 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6683 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6684 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6685 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6686 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6687 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6688 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6689 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6690 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6691 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6692 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6693 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6694 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6695 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6696 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6697 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6699 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6701 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6704 An attacker can force the use of weak
6705 keying material in OpenSSL SSL/TLS clients and servers. This can be exploited
6706 by a Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack where the attacker can decrypt and
6707 modify traffic from the attacked client and server.
6709 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6710 <reported source="KIKUCHI Masashi (Lepidum Co. Ltd.)"/>
6713 <issue public="20140605">
6714 <cve name="2014-0221"/>
6715 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6716 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6717 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6718 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6719 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6720 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6721 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6722 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6723 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6724 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6725 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6726 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6727 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6728 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6729 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6730 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6731 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6732 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6733 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6734 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6735 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6736 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6737 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6738 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6739 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6740 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6741 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6742 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6743 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6744 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6745 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6746 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6747 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6748 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6749 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6750 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6751 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6752 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6753 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6754 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6755 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6756 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6757 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6758 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6759 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6760 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6761 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6763 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6765 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6767 <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>
6768 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6769 <reported source="Imre Rad (Search-Lab Ltd.)"/>
6772 <issue public="20140605">
6773 <cve name="2014-0195"/>
6774 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6775 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6776 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6777 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6778 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6779 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6780 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6781 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6782 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6783 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6784 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6785 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6786 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6787 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6788 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6789 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6790 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6791 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6792 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6793 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6794 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6795 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6796 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6797 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6798 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6799 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6800 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6801 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6802 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6803 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6804 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6805 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6807 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6809 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6811 <description>A buffer overrun attack can be triggered by sending invalid DTLS fragments
6812 to an OpenSSL DTLS client or server. This is potentially exploitable to
6813 run arbitrary code on a vulnerable client or server. Only applications using OpenSSL as a DTLS client or server affected.
6815 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6816 <reported source="Jüri Aedla"/>
6819 <issue public="20140421">
6820 <cve name="2014-0198"/>
6821 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6822 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6823 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6824 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6825 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6826 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6827 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6828 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6829 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6830 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6831 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6832 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6833 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6834 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6835 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6836 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6837 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6838 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6839 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6840 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6841 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6843 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6845 <description>A flaw in the do_ssl3_write function can allow remote attackers to
6846 cause a denial of service via a NULL pointer dereference. This flaw
6847 only affects OpenSSL 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 where SSL_MODE_RELEASE_BUFFERS is
6848 enabled, which is not the default and not common.</description>
6849 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6852 <issue public="20140408">
6853 <cve name="2010-5298"/>
6854 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6855 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6856 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6857 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6858 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6859 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6860 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6861 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6862 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6863 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6864 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6865 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6866 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6867 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6868 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6869 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6870 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6871 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6872 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6873 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6874 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6876 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6878 <description>A race condition in the ssl3_read_bytes function can allow remote
6879 attackers to inject data across sessions or cause a denial of service.
6880 This flaw only affects multithreaded applications using OpenSSL 1.0.0
6881 and 1.0.1, where SSL_MODE_RELEASE_BUFFERS is enabled, which is not the
6882 default and not common.</description>
6883 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
6886 <issue public="20140530">
6887 <cve name="2014-3470"/>
6888 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8"/>
6889 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8a"/>
6890 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8b"/>
6891 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8c"/>
6892 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8d"/>
6893 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8e"/>
6894 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8f"/>
6895 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8g"/>
6896 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8h"/>
6897 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8i"/>
6898 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8j"/>
6899 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8k"/>
6900 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8l"/>
6901 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8m"/>
6902 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8n"/>
6903 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8o"/>
6904 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8p"/>
6905 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8q"/>
6906 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8r"/>
6907 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8s"/>
6908 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8t"/>
6909 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8u"/>
6910 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8v"/>
6911 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8w"/>
6912 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8x"/>
6913 <affects base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8y"/>
6914 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0"/>
6915 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0a"/>
6916 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0b"/>
6917 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0c"/>
6918 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0d"/>
6919 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0e"/>
6920 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0f"/>
6921 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0g"/>
6922 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0i"/>
6923 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0j"/>
6924 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0k"/>
6925 <affects base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0l"/>
6926 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1"/>
6927 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1a"/>
6928 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1b"/>
6929 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1c"/>
6930 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1d"/>
6931 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1e"/>
6932 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1f"/>
6933 <affects base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1g"/>
6934 <fixed base="1.0.1" version="1.0.1h" date="20140605">
6936 <fixed base="1.0.0" version="1.0.0m" date="20140605">
6938 <fixed base="0.9.8" version="0.9.8za" date="20140605">
6940 <description>OpenSSL TLS clients enabling anonymous ECDH ciphersuites are subject to a
6941 denial of service attack.</description>
6942 <reported source="Felix Gröbert and Ivan Fratrić (Google)"/>
6943 <advisory url="/news/secadv/20140605.txt"/>
projects / openssl-web.git / blob