Show filters
3 Total Results
Displaying 1-3 of 3
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2023-3446
Disclosure Date: July 19, 2023 (last updated October 08, 2023)
Issue summary: Checking excessively long DH keys or parameters may be very slow.
Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_check(), DH_check_ex()
or EVP_PKEY_param_check() to check a DH key or DH parameters may experience long
delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained
from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service.
The function DH_check() performs various checks on DH parameters. One of those
checks confirms that the modulus ('p' parameter) is not too large. Trying to use
a very large modulus is slow and OpenSSL will not normally use a modulus which
is over 10,000 bits in length.
However the DH_check() function checks numerous aspects of the key or parameters
that have been supplied. Some of those checks use the supplied modulus value
even if it has already been found to be too large.
An application that calls DH_check() and supplies a key or parameters obtained
from an untrusted source could be vulernable to a Denial…
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2021-4160
Disclosure Date: January 28, 2022 (last updated November 08, 2023)
There is a carry propagation bug in the MIPS32 and MIPS64 squaring procedure. Many EC algorithms are affected, including some of the TLS 1.3 default curves. Impact was not analyzed in detail, because the pre-requisites for attack are considered unlikely and include reusing private keys. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack would be significant. However, for an attack on TLS to be meaningful, the server would have to share the DH private key among multiple clients, which is no longer an option since CVE-2016-0701. This issue affects OpenSSL versions 1.0.2, 1.1.1 and 3.0.0. It was addressed in the releases of 1.1.1m and 3.0.1 on the 15th of December 2021. For…
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2021-4044
Disclosure Date: December 14, 2021 (last updated November 10, 2023)
Internally libssl in OpenSSL calls X509_verify_cert() on the client side to verify a certificate supplied by a server. That function may return a negative return value to indicate an internal error (for example out of memory). Such a negative return value is mishandled by OpenSSL and will cause an IO function (such as SSL_connect() or SSL_do_handshake()) to not indicate success and a subsequent call to SSL_get_error() to return the value SSL_ERROR_WANT_RETRY_VERIFY. This return value is only supposed to be returned by OpenSSL if the application has previously called SSL_CTX_set_cert_verify_callback(). Since most applications do not do this the SSL_ERROR_WANT_RETRY_VERIFY return value from SSL_get_error() will be totally unexpected and applications may not behave correctly as a result. The exact behaviour will depend on the application but it could result in crashes, infinite loops or other similar incorrect responses. This issue is made more serious in combination with a separate bug …
0