|
| 1 | +{ |
| 2 | + "containers": { |
| 3 | + "cna": { |
| 4 | + "affected": [ |
| 5 | + { |
| 6 | + "defaultStatus": "unaffected", |
| 7 | + "product": "OpenSSL", |
| 8 | + "vendor": "OpenSSL", |
| 9 | + "versions": [ |
| 10 | + { |
| 11 | + "lessThan": "3.4.1", |
| 12 | + "status": "affected", |
| 13 | + "version": "3.4.0", |
| 14 | + "versionType": "semver" |
| 15 | + }, |
| 16 | + { |
| 17 | + "lessThan": "3.3.3", |
| 18 | + "status": "affected", |
| 19 | + "version": "3.3.0", |
| 20 | + "versionType": "semver" |
| 21 | + }, |
| 22 | + { |
| 23 | + "lessThan": "3.2.4", |
| 24 | + "status": "affected", |
| 25 | + "version": "3.2.0", |
| 26 | + "versionType": "semver" |
| 27 | + } |
| 28 | + ] |
| 29 | + } |
| 30 | + ], |
| 31 | + "credits": [ |
| 32 | + { |
| 33 | + "lang": "en", |
| 34 | + "type": "finder", |
| 35 | + "value": "Apple Inc." |
| 36 | + }, |
| 37 | + { |
| 38 | + "lang": "en", |
| 39 | + "type": "remediation developer", |
| 40 | + "value": "Viktor Dukhovni" |
| 41 | + } |
| 42 | + ], |
| 43 | + "datePublic": "2025-02-11T14:00:00.000Z", |
| 44 | + "descriptions": [ |
| 45 | + { |
| 46 | + "lang": "en", |
| 47 | + "supportingMedia": [ |
| 48 | + { |
| 49 | + "base64": false, |
| 50 | + "type": "text/html", |
| 51 | + "value": "Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a<br>server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because<br>handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode<br>is set.<br><br>Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be<br>vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not<br>detected by clients.<br><br>RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue<br>only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the<br>server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate<br>chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to<br>fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,<br>by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.<br><br>Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw<br>public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those<br>that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was<br>introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue." |
| 52 | + } |
| 53 | + ], |
| 54 | + "value": "Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a\nserver may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because\nhandshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode\nis set.\n\nImpact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be\nvulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not\ndetected by clients.\n\nRPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue\nonly arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the\nserver, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate\nchain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to\nfail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,\nby setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.\n\nClients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw\npublic key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those\nthat do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was\nintroduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue." |
| 55 | + } |
| 56 | + ], |
| 57 | + "metrics": [ |
| 58 | + { |
| 59 | + "format": "other", |
| 60 | + "other": { |
| 61 | + "content": { |
| 62 | + "text": "High" |
| 63 | + }, |
| 64 | + "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/" |
| 65 | + } |
| 66 | + } |
| 67 | + ], |
| 68 | + "problemTypes": [ |
| 69 | + { |
| 70 | + "descriptions": [ |
| 71 | + { |
| 72 | + "cweId": "CWE-392", |
| 73 | + "description": "CWE-392 Missing Report of Error Condition", |
| 74 | + "lang": "en", |
| 75 | + "type": "CWE" |
| 76 | + } |
| 77 | + ] |
| 78 | + } |
| 79 | + ], |
| 80 | + "providerMetadata": { |
| 81 | + "orgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", |
| 82 | + "shortName": "openssl" |
| 83 | + }, |
| 84 | + "references": [ |
| 85 | + { |
| 86 | + "name": "OpenSSL Advisory", |
| 87 | + "tags": [ |
| 88 | + "vendor-advisory" |
| 89 | + ], |
| 90 | + "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20250211.txt" |
| 91 | + }, |
| 92 | + { |
| 93 | + "name": "3.4.1 git commit", |
| 94 | + "tags": [ |
| 95 | + "patch" |
| 96 | + ], |
| 97 | + "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/738d4f9fdeaad57660dcba50a619fafced3fd5e9" |
| 98 | + }, |
| 99 | + { |
| 100 | + "name": "3.3.3 git commit", |
| 101 | + "tags": [ |
| 102 | + "patch" |
| 103 | + ], |
| 104 | + "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/87ebd203feffcf92ad5889df92f90bb0ee10a699" |
| 105 | + }, |
| 106 | + { |
| 107 | + "name": "3.2.4 git commit", |
| 108 | + "tags": [ |
| 109 | + "patch" |
| 110 | + ], |
| 111 | + "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/798779d43494549b611233f92652f0da5328fbe7" |
| 112 | + } |
| 113 | + ], |
| 114 | + "source": { |
| 115 | + "discovery": "UNKNOWN" |
| 116 | + }, |
| 117 | + "title": "RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don't abort as expected", |
| 118 | + "x_generator": { |
| 119 | + "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0" |
| 120 | + } |
| 121 | + } |
| 122 | + }, |
| 123 | + "cveMetadata": { |
| 124 | + "assignerOrgId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", |
| 125 | + "cveId": "CVE-2024-12797", |
| 126 | + "requesterUserId": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000", |
| 127 | + "serial": 1, |
| 128 | + "state": "PUBLISHED" |
| 129 | + }, |
| 130 | + "dataType": "CVE_RECORD", |
| 131 | + "dataVersion": "5.1" |
| 132 | +} |
0 commit comments