CVE-2024-12797 (GCVE-0-2024-12797)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-02-11 15:59 – Updated: 2025-02-18 14:01
VLAI
Title
RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don't abort as expected
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.
Severity
6.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
SSVC
Exploitation: none Automatable: no Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator (v2.0.3)
CWE
  • CWE-392 - Missing Report of Error Condition
Assigner
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
OpenSSL OpenSSL Affected: 3.4.0 , < 3.4.1 (semver)
Affected: 3.3.0 , < 3.3.3 (semver)
Affected: 3.2.0 , < 3.2.4 (semver)
Create a notification for this product.
Date Public
2025-02-11 14:00
Credits
Apple Inc. Viktor Dukhovni
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2025-02-15T00:10:32.191Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/02/11/3"
          },
          {
            "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/02/11/4"
          },
          {
            "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250214-0001/"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      },
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "LOW",
              "baseScore": 6.3,
              "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
              "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
              "integrityImpact": "LOW",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2024-12797",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "no"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2025-02-14T20:24:14.595864Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2025-02-18T14:01:55.140Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "OpenSSL",
          "vendor": "OpenSSL",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "3.4.1",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.4.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.3.3",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.3.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            },
            {
              "lessThan": "3.2.4",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.2.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "finder",
          "value": "Apple Inc."
        },
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "type": "remediation developer",
          "value": "Viktor Dukhovni"
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2025-02-11T14:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a\u003cbr\u003eserver may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because\u003cbr\u003ehandshakes don\u0027t abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode\u003cbr\u003eis set.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be\u003cbr\u003evulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not\u003cbr\u003edetected by clients.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eRPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers.  The issue\u003cbr\u003eonly arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the\u003cbr\u003eserver, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate\u003cbr\u003echain.  The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to\u003cbr\u003efail when the server\u0027s RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,\u003cbr\u003eby setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eClients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw\u003cbr\u003epublic key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those\u003cbr\u003ethat do, and take appropriate action, are not affected.  This issue was\u003cbr\u003eintroduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue."
            }
          ],
          "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\u0027t 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\u0027s 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."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "format": "other",
          "other": {
            "content": {
              "text": "High"
            },
            "type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-392",
              "description": "CWE-392 Missing Report of Error Condition",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2025-02-11T15:59:36.719Z",
        "orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
        "shortName": "openssl"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
          "tags": [
            "vendor-advisory"
          ],
          "url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20250211.txt"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.4.1 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/738d4f9fdeaad57660dcba50a619fafced3fd5e9"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.3.3 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/87ebd203feffcf92ad5889df92f90bb0ee10a699"
        },
        {
          "name": "3.2.4 git commit",
          "tags": [
            "patch"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/798779d43494549b611233f92652f0da5328fbe7"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don\u0027t abort as expected",
      "x_generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
    "assignerShortName": "openssl",
    "cveId": "CVE-2024-12797",
    "datePublished": "2025-02-11T15:59:36.719Z",
    "dateReserved": "2024-12-19T13:54:37.212Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2025-02-18T14:01:55.140Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "epss": {
      "cve": "CVE-2024-12797",
      "date": "2026-06-21",
      "epss": "0.02357",
      "percentile": "0.81544"
    },
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2024-12797\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"published\":\"2025-02-11T16:15:38.827\",\"lastModified\":\"2025-02-18T14:15:27.107\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Awaiting Analysis\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"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\u0027t 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\u0027s 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.\"},{\"lang\":\"es\",\"value\":\"Resumen del problema: los clientes que utilizan claves p\u00fablicas sin procesar (RPK) RFC7250 para autenticar un servidor pueden no darse cuenta de que el servidor no se ha autenticado, porque los protocolos de enlace no se cancelan como se espera cuando se establece el modo de verificaci\u00f3n SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Resumen del impacto: las conexiones TLS y DTLS que utilizan claves p\u00fablicas sin procesar pueden ser vulnerables a ataques de intermediarios cuando los clientes no detectan un error de autenticaci\u00f3n del servidor. Las RPK est\u00e1n deshabilitadas de forma predeterminada tanto en los clientes TLS como en los servidores TLS. El problema solo surge cuando los clientes TLS habilitan expl\u00edcitamente el uso de RPK por parte del servidor y el servidor, a su vez, habilita el env\u00edo de una RPK en lugar de una cadena de certificados X.509. Los clientes afectados son aquellos que dependen de que el protocolo de enlace falle cuando la RPK del servidor no coincide con una de las claves p\u00fablicas esperadas, al establecer el modo de verificaci\u00f3n en SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Los clientes que habilitan claves p\u00fablicas sin procesar del lado del servidor a\u00fan pueden descubrir que la verificaci\u00f3n de clave p\u00fablica sin procesar fall\u00f3 al llamar a SSL_get_verify_result(), y aquellos que lo hacen y toman las medidas adecuadas no se ven afectados. Este problema se introdujo en la implementaci\u00f3n inicial de la compatibilidad con RPK en OpenSSL 3.2. Los m\u00f3dulos FIPS en 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 y 3.0 no se ven afectados por este problema.\"}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV31\":[{\"source\":\"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"3.1\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L\",\"baseScore\":6.3,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"REQUIRED\",\"scope\":\"UNCHANGED\",\"confidentialityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"integrityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"availabilityImpact\":\"LOW\"},\"exploitabilityScore\":2.8,\"impactScore\":3.4}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-392\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/738d4f9fdeaad57660dcba50a619fafced3fd5e9\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/798779d43494549b611233f92652f0da5328fbe7\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/87ebd203feffcf92ad5889df92f90bb0ee10a699\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20250211.txt\",\"source\":\"openssl-security@openssl.org\"},{\"url\":\"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/02/11/3\",\"source\":\"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\"},{\"url\":\"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/02/11/4\",\"source\":\"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\"},{\"url\":\"https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250214-0001/\",\"source\":\"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\"}]}}",
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"adp\": [{\"title\": \"CVE Program Container\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/02/11/3\"}, {\"url\": \"http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/02/11/4\"}, {\"url\": \"https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20250214-0001/\"}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108\", \"shortName\": \"CVE\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-02-15T00:10:32.191Z\"}}, {\"title\": \"CISA ADP Vulnrichment\", \"metrics\": [{\"cvssV3_1\": {\"scope\": \"UNCHANGED\", \"version\": \"3.1\", \"baseScore\": 6.3, \"attackVector\": \"NETWORK\", \"baseSeverity\": \"MEDIUM\", \"vectorString\": \"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L\", \"integrityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"userInteraction\": \"REQUIRED\", \"attackComplexity\": \"LOW\", \"availabilityImpact\": \"LOW\", \"privilegesRequired\": \"NONE\", \"confidentialityImpact\": \"LOW\"}}, {\"other\": {\"type\": \"ssvc\", \"content\": {\"id\": \"CVE-2024-12797\", \"role\": \"CISA Coordinator\", \"options\": [{\"Exploitation\": \"none\"}, {\"Automatable\": \"no\"}, {\"Technical Impact\": \"partial\"}], \"version\": \"2.0.3\", \"timestamp\": \"2025-02-14T20:24:14.595864Z\"}}}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0\", \"shortName\": \"CISA-ADP\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-02-14T20:24:52.904Z\"}}], \"cna\": {\"title\": \"RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don\u0027t abort as expected\", \"source\": {\"discovery\": \"UNKNOWN\"}, \"credits\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"finder\", \"value\": \"Apple Inc.\"}, {\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"remediation developer\", \"value\": \"Viktor Dukhovni\"}], \"metrics\": [{\"other\": {\"type\": \"https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/\", \"content\": {\"text\": \"High\"}}, \"format\": \"other\"}], \"affected\": [{\"vendor\": \"OpenSSL\", \"product\": \"OpenSSL\", \"versions\": [{\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.4.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.4.1\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.3.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.3.3\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}, {\"status\": \"affected\", \"version\": \"3.2.0\", \"lessThan\": \"3.2.4\", \"versionType\": \"semver\"}], \"defaultStatus\": \"unaffected\"}], \"datePublic\": \"2025-02-11T14:00:00.000Z\", \"references\": [{\"url\": \"https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20250211.txt\", \"name\": \"OpenSSL Advisory\", \"tags\": [\"vendor-advisory\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/738d4f9fdeaad57660dcba50a619fafced3fd5e9\", \"name\": \"3.4.1 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/87ebd203feffcf92ad5889df92f90bb0ee10a699\", \"name\": \"3.3.3 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}, {\"url\": \"https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/798779d43494549b611233f92652f0da5328fbe7\", \"name\": \"3.2.4 git commit\", \"tags\": [\"patch\"]}], \"x_generator\": {\"engine\": \"Vulnogram 0.2.0\"}, \"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"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\u0027t 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\u0027s 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.\", \"supportingMedia\": [{\"type\": \"text/html\", \"value\": \"Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a\u003cbr\u003eserver may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because\u003cbr\u003ehandshakes don\u0027t abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode\u003cbr\u003eis set.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be\u003cbr\u003evulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not\u003cbr\u003edetected by clients.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eRPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers.  The issue\u003cbr\u003eonly arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the\u003cbr\u003eserver, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate\u003cbr\u003echain.  The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to\u003cbr\u003efail when the server\u0027s RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,\u003cbr\u003eby setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eClients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw\u003cbr\u003epublic key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those\u003cbr\u003ethat do, and take appropriate action, are not affected.  This issue was\u003cbr\u003eintroduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.\", \"base64\": false}]}], \"problemTypes\": [{\"descriptions\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"type\": \"CWE\", \"cweId\": \"CWE-392\", \"description\": \"CWE-392 Missing Report of Error Condition\"}]}], \"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"shortName\": \"openssl\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-02-11T15:59:36.719Z\"}}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2024-12797\", \"state\": \"PUBLISHED\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-02-18T14:01:55.140Z\", \"dateReserved\": \"2024-12-19T13:54:37.212Z\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5\", \"datePublished\": \"2025-02-11T15:59:36.719Z\", \"assignerShortName\": \"openssl\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.1"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.