GSD-2023-6937

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-19 06:01
Details
wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating.
Aliases
To clipboard 

{
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2023-6937"
      ],
      "details": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating.",
      "id": "GSD-2023-6937",
      "modified": "2023-12-19T06:01:18.015923Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "facts@wolfssl.com",
        "ID": "CVE-2023-6937",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "wolfSSL",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_affected": "\u003c=",
                          "version_name": "0",
                          "version_value": "5.6.4"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "wolfSSL"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "credits": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "Johannes Wilson from Sectra Communications and Link\u00f6ping University"
        }
      ],
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
          }
        ]
      },
      "generator": {
        "engine": "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev"
      },
      "impact": {
        "cvss": [
          {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 5.3,
            "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
            "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
            "integrityImpact": "NONE",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          }
        ]
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-20",
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
          }
        ]
      },
      "solution": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "supportingMedia": [
            {
              "base64": false,
              "type": "text/html",
              "value": "\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003eThe fix for this issue is located in the following GitHub Pull Request: \u003c/span\u003e\u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003ehttps://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"
            }
          ],
          "value": "The fix for this issue is located in the following GitHub Pull Request:  https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 .\n\n"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "discovery": "EXTERNAL"
      }
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "cve": {
        "descriptions": [
          {
            "lang": "en",
            "value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
          }
        ],
        "id": "CVE-2023-6937",
        "lastModified": "2024-02-15T19:55:09.230",
        "metrics": {
          "cvssMetricV31": [
            {
              "cvssData": {
                "attackComplexity": "LOW",
                "attackVector": "NETWORK",
                "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
                "baseScore": 5.3,
                "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
                "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
                "integrityImpact": "NONE",
                "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
                "scope": "UNCHANGED",
                "userInteraction": "NONE",
                "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
                "version": "3.1"
              },
              "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
              "impactScore": 1.4,
              "source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
              "type": "Secondary"
            }
          ]
        },
        "published": "2024-02-15T18:15:44.890",
        "references": [
          {
            "source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
            "url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
          },
          {
            "source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
            "url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
          }
        ],
        "sourceIdentifier": "facts@wolfssl.com",
        "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
        "weaknesses": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "en",
                "value": "CWE-20"
              }
            ],
            "source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
            "type": "Secondary"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  }
}


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 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.