ghsa-8vmc-7qrc-q5mx
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-11-15 12:00
Modified
2024-04-23 09:30
Severity ?
7.5 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Details

Using long exponents in the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol allows remote attackers (from the client side) to trigger unnecessarily expensive server-side DHE modular-exponentiation calculations. An attacker may cause asymmetric resource consumption with any common client application which uses a DHE implementation that applies short exponents. The attack may be more disruptive in cases where a client sends arbitrary numbers that are actually not DH public keys (aka the D(HE)ater attack) or can require a server to select its largest supported key size. The basic attack scenario is that the client must claim that it can only communicate with DHE, and the server must be configured to allow DHE. This can affect TLS, SSH, and IKE.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-40735"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-11-14T23:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Using long exponents in the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol allows remote attackers (from the client side) to trigger unnecessarily expensive server-side DHE modular-exponentiation calculations. An attacker may cause asymmetric resource consumption with any common client application which uses a DHE implementation that applies short exponents. The attack may be more disruptive in cases where a client sends arbitrary numbers that are actually not DH public keys (aka the D(HE)ater attack) or can require a server to select its largest supported key size. The basic attack scenario is that the client must claim that it can only communicate with DHE, and the server must be configured to allow DHE. This can affect TLS, SSH, and IKE.",
  "id": "GHSA-8vmc-7qrc-q5mx",
  "modified": "2024-04-23T09:30:46Z",
  "published": "2022-11-15T12:00:17Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-40735"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/mozilla/ssl-config-generator/issues/162"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://dheatattack.gitlab.io"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gist.github.com/c0r0n3r/9455ddcab985c50fd1912eabf26e058b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10374117"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/3-540-68339-9_29.pdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5.pdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CVEProject/cvelist/9d7fbbcabd3f44cfedc9e8807757d31ece85a2c6/2022/40xxx/CVE-2022-40735.json"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anton-Stiglic-2/publication/2401745_Security_Issues_in_the_Diffie-Hellman_Key_Agreement_Protocol/links/546c144f0cf20dedafd53e7e/Security-Issues-in-the-Diffie-Hellman-Key-Agreement-Protocol.pdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3526"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4419"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5114#section-4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7919#section-5.2"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.