CPE Details
Alerte pour un CPE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CPE.
CPE Name: cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl:2.6.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
Informations
Vendor
wolfsslProduct
wolfsslVersion
2.6.2Related CVE
| CVE ID | Published | Description | Score | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The side-channel protected T-Table implementation in wolfSSL up to version 5.6.5 protects against a side-channel attacker with cache-line resolution. In a controlled environment such as Intel SGX, an attacker can gain a per instruction sub-cache-line resolution allowing them to break the cache-line-level protection. For details on the attack refer to: https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2024.i1.457-500 | 5.5 |
Medium |
||
| In function MatchDomainName(), input param str is treated as a NULL terminated string despite being user provided and unchecked. Specifically, the function X509_check_host() takes in a pointer and length to check against, with no requirements that it be NULL terminated. If a caller was attempting to do a name check on a non-NULL terminated buffer, the code would read beyond the bounds of the input array until it found a NULL terminator.This issue affects wolfSSL: through 5.7.0. | 10 |
Critical |
||
| In wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6, if callback functions are enabled (via the WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS flag), then a malicious TLS client or network attacker can trigger a buffer over-read on the heap of 5 bytes (WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS is only intended for debugging). | 9.1 |
Critical |
||
| wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating. | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| If a TLS 1.3 client gets neither a PSK (pre shared key) extension nor a KSE (key share extension) when connecting to a malicious server, a default predictable buffer gets used for the IKM (Input Keying Material) value when generating the session master secret. Using a potentially known IKM value when generating the session master secret key compromises the key generated, allowing an eavesdropper to reconstruct it and potentially allowing access to or meddling with message contents in the session. This issue does not affect client validation of connected servers, nor expose private key information, but could result in an insecure TLS 1.3 session when not controlling both sides of the connection. wolfSSL recommends that TLS 1.3 client side users update the version of wolfSSL used. | 9.1 |
Critical |
||
| In wolfSSL before 5.5.2, if callback functions are enabled (via the WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS flag), then a malicious TLS 1.3 client or network attacker can trigger a buffer over-read on the heap of 5 bytes. (WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS is only intended for debugging.) | 9.1 |
Critical |
||
| An issue was discovered in wolfSSL before 5.5.0. A fault injection attack on RAM via Rowhammer leads to ECDSA key disclosure. Users performing signing operations with private ECC keys, such as in server-side TLS connections, might leak faulty ECC signatures. These signatures can be processed via an advanced technique for ECDSA key recovery. (In 5.5.0 and later, WOLFSSL_CHECK_SIG_FAULTS can be used to address the vulnerability.) | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| In wolfSSL before 5.5.1, malicious clients can cause a buffer overflow during a TLS 1.3 handshake. This occurs when an attacker supposedly resumes a previous TLS session. During the resumption Client Hello a Hello Retry Request must be triggered. Both Client Hellos are required to contain a list of duplicate cipher suites to trigger the buffer overflow. In total, two Client Hellos have to be sent: one in the resumed session, and a second one as a response to a Hello Retry Request message. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| wolfSSL through 5.0.0 allows an attacker to cause a denial of service and infinite loop in the client component by sending crafted traffic from a Machine-in-the-Middle (MITM) position. The root cause is that the client module accepts TLS messages that normally are only sent to TLS servers. | 5.9 |
Medium |
||
| An issue was discovered in wolfSSL before 5.5.0. When a TLS 1.3 client connects to a wolfSSL server and SSL_clear is called on its session, the server crashes with a segmentation fault. This occurs in the second session, which is created through TLS session resumption and reuses the initial struct WOLFSSL. If the server reuses the previous session structure (struct WOLFSSL) by calling wolfSSL_clear(WOLFSSL* ssl) on it, the next received Client Hello (that resumes the previous session) crashes the server. Note that this bug is only triggered when resuming sessions using TLS session resumption. Only servers that use wolfSSL_clear instead of the recommended SSL_free; SSL_new sequence are affected. Furthermore, wolfSSL_clear is part of wolfSSL's compatibility layer and is not enabled by default. It is not part of wolfSSL's native API. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| wolfSSL before 5.4.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via DTLS because a check for return-routability can be skipped. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| In wolfSSL before 5.2.0, a TLS 1.3 server cannot properly enforce a requirement for mutual authentication. A client can simply omit the certificate_verify message from the handshake, and never present a certificate. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| In wolfSSL before 5.2.0, certificate validation may be bypassed during attempted authentication by a TLS 1.3 client to a TLS 1.3 server. This occurs when the sig_algo field differs between the certificate_verify message and the certificate message. | 6.5 |
Medium |
||
| wolfSSL before 4.8.1 incorrectly skips OCSP verification in certain situations of irrelevant response data that contains the NoCheck extension. | 5.9 |
Medium |
||
| In wolfSSL through 4.6.0, a side-channel vulnerability in base64 PEM file decoding allows system-level (administrator) attackers to obtain information about secret RSA keys via a controlled-channel and side-channel attack on software running in isolated environments that can be single stepped, especially Intel SGX. | 4.9 |
Medium |
||
| DoTls13CertificateVerify in tls13.c in wolfSSL before 4.7.0 does not cease processing for certain anomalous peer behavior (sending an ED22519, ED448, ECC, or RSA signature without the corresponding certificate). The client side is affected because man-in-the-middle attackers can impersonate TLS 1.3 servers. | 8.1 |
High |
||
| RsaPad_PSS in wolfcrypt/src/rsa.c in wolfSSL before 4.6.0 has an out-of-bounds write for certain relationships between key size and digest size. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| wolfSSL before 4.5.0 mishandles TLS 1.3 server data in the WAIT_CERT_CR state, within SanityCheckTls13MsgReceived() in tls13.c. This is an incorrect implementation of the TLS 1.3 client state machine. This allows attackers in a privileged network position to completely impersonate any TLS 1.3 servers, and read or modify potentially sensitive information between clients using the wolfSSL library and these TLS servers. | 6.8 |
Medium |
||
| An issue was discovered in wolfSSL before 4.5.0, when single precision is not employed. Local attackers can conduct a cache-timing attack against public key operations. These attackers may already have obtained sensitive information if the affected system has been used for private key operations (e.g., signing with a private key). | 7 |
High |
||
| An issue was discovered in wolfSSL before 4.5.0. It mishandles the change_cipher_spec (CCS) message processing logic for TLS 1.3. If an attacker sends ChangeCipherSpec messages in a crafted way involving more than one in a row, the server becomes stuck in the ProcessReply() loop, i.e., a denial of service. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| An issue was discovered in the DTLS handshake implementation in wolfSSL before 4.5.0. Clear DTLS application_data messages in epoch 0 do not produce an out-of-order error. Instead, these messages are returned to the application. | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| The private-key operations in ecc.c in wolfSSL before 4.4.0 do not use a constant-time modular inverse when mapping to affine coordinates, aka a "projective coordinates leak." | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| wolfSSL CyaSSL before 2.9.4 allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact via multiple calls to the CyaSSL_read function which triggers an out-of-bounds read when an error occurs, related to not checking the return code and MAC verification failure. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| The SSL 3 HMAC functionality in wolfSSL CyaSSL 2.5.0 before 2.9.4 does not check the padding length when verification fails, which allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a crafted HMAC, which triggers an out-of-bounds read. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| The DoAlert function in the (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in wolfSSL CyaSSL before 2.9.4 allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact and vectors, which trigger memory corruption or an out-of-bounds read. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| In wolfSSL before 4.3.0, wc_ecc_mulmod_ex does not properly resist side-channel attacks. | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| wolfSSL before 4.3.0 mishandles calls to wc_SignatureGenerateHash, leading to fault injection in RSA cryptography. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| An issue was discovered in wolfSSL before 4.3.0 in a non-default configuration where DSA is enabled. DSA signing uses the BEEA algorithm during modular inversion of the nonce, leading to a side-channel attack against the nonce. | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| wolfSSL and wolfCrypt 4.1.0 and earlier (formerly known as CyaSSL) generate biased DSA nonces. This allows a remote attacker to compute the long term private key from several hundred DSA signatures via a lattice attack. The issue occurs because dsa.c fixes two bits of the generated nonces. | 5.3 |
Medium |
||
| wolfssl before 3.2.0 has a server certificate that is not properly authorized for server authentication. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| wolfssl before 3.2.0 does not properly authorize CA certificate for signing other certificates. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| wolfssl before 3.2.0 does not properly issue certificates for a server's hostname. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| wolfSSL and wolfCrypt 4.0.0 and earlier (when configured without --enable-fpecc, --enable-sp, or --enable-sp-math) contain a timing side channel in ECDSA signature generation. This allows a local attacker, able to precisely measure the duration of signature operations, to infer information about the nonces used and potentially mount a lattice attack to recover the private key used. The issue occurs because ecc.c scalar multiplication might leak the bit length. | 4.7 |
Medium |
||
| In wolfSSL through 4.1.0, there is a missing sanity check of memory accesses in parsing ASN.1 certificate data while handshaking. Specifically, there is a one-byte heap-based buffer over-read in CheckCertSignature_ex in wolfcrypt/src/asn.c. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| examples/benchmark/tls_bench.c in a benchmark tool in wolfSSL through 3.15.7 has a heap-based buffer overflow. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| It was found that wolfssl before 3.15.7 is vulnerable to a new variant of the Bleichenbacher attack to perform downgrade attacks against TLS. This may lead to leakage of sensible data. | 5.9 |
Medium |
||
| wolfcrypt/src/ecc.c in wolfSSL before 3.15.1.patch allows a memory-cache side-channel attack on ECDSA signatures, aka the Return Of the Hidden Number Problem or ROHNP. To discover an ECDSA key, the attacker needs access to either the local machine or a different virtual machine on the same physical host. | 4.7 |
Medium |
||
| wolfSSL prior to version 3.12.2 provides a weak Bleichenbacher oracle when any TLS cipher suite using RSA key exchange is negotiated. An attacker can recover the private key from a vulnerable wolfSSL application. This vulnerability is referred to as "ROBOT." | 7.5 |
High |
||
| CyaSSL does not check the key usage extension in leaf certificates, which allows remote attackers to spoof servers via a crafted server certificate not authorized for use in an SSL/TLS handshake. | 5.9 |
Medium |
||
| A specially crafted x509 certificate can cause a single out of bounds byte overwrite in wolfSSL through 3.10.2 resulting in potential certificate validation vulnerabilities, denial of service and possible remote code execution. In order to trigger this vulnerability, the attacker needs to supply a malicious x509 certificate to either a server or a client application using this library. | 9.8 |
Critical |
||
| wolfSSL before 3.10.2 has an out-of-bounds memory access with loading crafted DH parameters, aka a buffer overflow triggered by a malformed temporary DH file. | 7.8 |
High |
||
| wolfSSL before 3.11.0 does not prevent wc_DhAgree from accepting a malformed DH key. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| In versions of wolfSSL before 3.10.2 the function fp_mul_comba makes it easier to extract RSA key information for a malicious user who has access to view cache on a machine. | 5.5 |
Medium |
||
| The C software implementation of ECC in wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL) before 3.9.10 makes it easier for local users to discover RSA keys by leveraging cache-bank hit differences. | 5.5 |
Medium |
||
| The C software implementation of RSA in wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL) before 3.9.10 makes it easier for local users to discover RSA keys by leveraging cache-bank hit differences. | 5.5 |
Medium |
||
| The C software implementation of AES Encryption and Decryption in wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL) before 3.9.10 makes it easier for local users to discover AES keys by leveraging cache-bank timing differences. | 5.5 |
Medium |
||
| wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL) before 3.6.8 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption or traffic amplification) via a crafted DTLS cookie in a ClientHello message. | 7.5 |
High |
||
| wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL) before 3.6.8 does not properly handle faults associated with the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT) process when allowing ephemeral key exchange without low memory optimizations on a server, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain private RSA keys by capturing TLS handshakes, aka a Lenstra attack. | 5.9 |
Medium |
2025©
tesweb SA
