gsd-2017-2629
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:21
Details
curl before 7.53.0 has an incorrect TLS Certificate Status Request extension feature that asks for a fresh proof of the server's certificate's validity in the code that checks for a test success or failure. It ends up always thinking there's valid proof, even when there is none or if the server doesn't support the TLS extension in question. This could lead to users not detecting when a server's certificate goes invalid or otherwise be mislead that the server is in a better shape than it is in reality. This flaw also exists in the command line tool (--cert-status).
Aliases
Aliases
{
"GSD": {
"alias": "CVE-2017-2629",
"description": "curl before 7.53.0 has an incorrect TLS Certificate Status Request extension feature that asks for a fresh proof of the server\u0027s certificate\u0027s validity in the code that checks for a test success or failure. It ends up always thinking there\u0027s valid proof, even when there is none or if the server doesn\u0027t support the TLS extension in question. This could lead to users not detecting when a server\u0027s certificate goes invalid or otherwise be mislead that the server is in a better shape than it is in reality. This flaw also exists in the command line tool (--cert-status).",
"id": "GSD-2017-2629",
"references": [
"https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2017-2629.html",
"https://security.archlinux.org/CVE-2017-2629"
]
},
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-2629"
],
"details": "curl before 7.53.0 has an incorrect TLS Certificate Status Request extension feature that asks for a fresh proof of the server\u0027s certificate\u0027s validity in the code that checks for a test success or failure. It ends up always thinking there\u0027s valid proof, even when there is none or if the server doesn\u0027t support the TLS extension in question. This could lead to users not detecting when a server\u0027s certificate goes invalid or otherwise be mislead that the server is in a better shape than it is in reality. This flaw also exists in the command line tool (--cert-status).",
"id": "GSD-2017-2629",
"modified": "2023-12-13T01:21:05.891906Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "secalert@redhat.com",
"ID": "CVE-2017-2629",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "curl",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "7.53.0"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "CURL"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "curl before 7.53.0 has an incorrect TLS Certificate Status Request extension feature that asks for a fresh proof of the server\u0027s certificate\u0027s validity in the code that checks for a test success or failure. It ends up always thinking there\u0027s valid proof, even when there is none or if the server doesn\u0027t support the TLS extension in question. This could lead to users not detecting when a server\u0027s certificate goes invalid or otherwise be mislead that the server is in a better shape than it is in reality. This flaw also exists in the command line tool (--cert-status)."
}
]
},
"impact": {
"cvss": [
[
{
"vectorString": "4.3/CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"version": "3.0"
}
]
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "CWE-295"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "96382",
"refsource": "BID",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/96382"
},
{
"name": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2017-2629",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2017-2629"
},
{
"name": "1037871",
"refsource": "SECTRACK",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037871"
},
{
"name": "https://www.tenable.com/security/tns-2017-09",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/tns-2017-09"
},
{
"name": "https://curl.haxx.se/docs/adv_20170222.html",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://curl.haxx.se/docs/adv_20170222.html"
},
{
"name": "GLSA-201703-04",
"refsource": "GENTOO",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201703-04"
}
]
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"configurations": {
"CVE_data_version": "4.0",
"nodes": [
{
"children": [],
"cpe_match": [
{
"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:haxx:curl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"cpe_name": [],
"versionEndExcluding": "7.53.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"operator": "OR"
}
]
},
"cve": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "secalert@redhat.com",
"ID": "CVE-2017-2629"
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "curl before 7.53.0 has an incorrect TLS Certificate Status Request extension feature that asks for a fresh proof of the server\u0027s certificate\u0027s validity in the code that checks for a test success or failure. It ends up always thinking there\u0027s valid proof, even when there is none or if the server doesn\u0027t support the TLS extension in question. This could lead to users not detecting when a server\u0027s certificate goes invalid or otherwise be mislead that the server is in a better shape than it is in reality. This flaw also exists in the command line tool (--cert-status)."
}
]
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-295"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://curl.haxx.se/docs/adv_20170222.html",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://curl.haxx.se/docs/adv_20170222.html"
},
{
"name": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2017-2629",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Issue Tracking",
"Patch",
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2017-2629"
},
{
"name": "https://www.tenable.com/security/tns-2017-09",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/tns-2017-09"
},
{
"name": "GLSA-201703-04",
"refsource": "GENTOO",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory"
],
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201703-04"
},
{
"name": "1037871",
"refsource": "SECTRACK",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory",
"VDB Entry"
],
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037871"
},
{
"name": "96382",
"refsource": "BID",
"tags": [
"Third Party Advisory",
"VDB Entry"
],
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/96382"
}
]
}
},
"impact": {
"baseMetricV2": {
"cvssV2": {
"accessComplexity": "LOW",
"accessVector": "NETWORK",
"authentication": "SINGLE",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.0,
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
"vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N",
"version": "2.0"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 8.0,
"impactScore": 2.9,
"obtainAllPrivilege": false,
"obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
"obtainUserPrivilege": false,
"severity": "MEDIUM",
"userInteractionRequired": false
},
"baseMetricV3": {
"cvssV3": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.0"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
"impactScore": 3.6
}
},
"lastModifiedDate": "2019-10-09T23:26Z",
"publishedDate": "2018-07-27T19:29Z"
}
}
}
Loading...