Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 2.53% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2024-12797High confidence
RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don't abort as expected
OpenSSL · OpenSSL
6.3MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs OpenSSL OpenSSL and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
7 package statesRelease-specific package status
Alpine, Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine v3.23v3.23 · main | openssl | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 3.3.3-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 3 Oct 2026 |
| Alpine v3.22v3.22 · main | openssl | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 3.3.3-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 3 Oct 2026 |
| Alpine v3.21v3.21 · main | openssl | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 3.3.3-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 3 Oct 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | openssl | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | openssl | Not affectedDebian marks this release not affected (fixed-version marker 0). | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | openssl | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | openssl | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Open-source package ranges2 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPIcryptography | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 42.0.0; fixed 44.0.1 | 44.0.1 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| pipcryptography | >= 42.0.0, < 44.0.1 | 44.0.1 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 12 Feb 2025 |
Direct vendor intelligence
2 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2024-12797 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 40 · interimSUSE Product Security TeamCVE-2024-12797
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- SLES 15 SP1 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP2 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP3 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP4 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP5 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP1 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP2 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP3 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP4 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP5 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP1 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- SLES 15 SP2 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- Summary
- Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys, by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2. The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
- Remediation
- To install this SUSE Security Update use the SUSE recommended installation methods like YaST online_update or "zypper patch".
CVE-2024-12797 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityopenssl: RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don't abort as expected
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
- flatpak-sdk-container as a component of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- Summary
- A flaw was found in OpenSSL's RFC7250 Raw Public Key (RPK) authentication. This vulnerability allows man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks via failure to abort TLS/DTLS handshakes when the server's RPK does not match the expected key despite the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode being set.
- Remediation
- For OpenShift Container Platform 4.14 see the following documentation, which will be updated shortly for this release, for important instructions on how to upgrade your cluster and fully apply this errata update: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.14/release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.html For Red Hat OpenShift Logging 5.9, see the following instructions to apply this update: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.14/logging/cluster-logging-upgrading.html
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys, by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2. The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
What
Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys, by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2. The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
Why
The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys, by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2. The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
Why
The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Missing Report of Error Condition → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-392 ↗
CWE-392: Missing Report of Error Condition. The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ALowAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- SLES 15 SP1 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP2 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP3 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP4 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP5 CHOST Images for Amazon EC2
- SLES 15 SP1 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP2 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP3 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP4 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP5 CHOST Images for Google
- SLES 15 SP1 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- SLES 15 SP2 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- SLES 15 SP3 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- SLES 15 SP4 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- SLES 15 SP5 CHOST Images for Microsoft Azure
- Action
- To install this SUSE Security Update use the SUSE recommended installation methods like YaST online_update or "zypper patch".
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 11 Feb 2025 · Last source change 18 Feb 2025, 14:01 UTC · CWE-392 · Missing Report of Error Condition
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCISA ADP
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-51115
Product sourceVendor CSAF · SUSE Product Security Team
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · SUSE Product Security Team
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- 3.4.0 < 3.4.1; 3.3.0 < 3.3.3; 3.2.0 < 3.2.4 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- 3.4.0 < 3.4.1; 3.3.0 < 3.3.3; 3.2.0 < 3.2.4 · Fixed: For OpenShift Container Platform 4.14 see the following documentation, which will be updated shortly for this release, for important instructions on how to upgrade your cluster and fully apply this errata update: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.14/release_notes/ocp-4-14-release-notes.html For Red Hat OpenShift Logging 5.9, see the following instructions to apply this update: https://docs.openshift.com/container-platform/4.14/logging/cluster-logging-upgrading.html
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Patch available
CVE published
Fixed release recorded from official guidance
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.