Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 67.19% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedOpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment
OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through the affected interface may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-264. Open the MITRE definition for the exact weakness description.
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:POperational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 16 Jun 2012 · Last source change 6 Aug 2024, 22:28 UTC · CWE-264
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.