CVE-2023-5363

Published Oct 25, 2023

Last updated 5 months ago

CVSS high 7.5
SSL

Overview

Description
Issue summary: A bug has been identified in the processing of key and initialisation vector (IV) lengths. This can lead to potential truncation or overruns during the initialisation of some symmetric ciphers. Impact summary: A truncation in the IV can result in non-uniqueness, which could result in loss of confidentiality for some cipher modes. When calling EVP_EncryptInit_ex2(), EVP_DecryptInit_ex2() or EVP_CipherInit_ex2() the provided OSSL_PARAM array is processed after the key and IV have been established. Any alterations to the key length, via the "keylen" parameter or the IV length, via the "ivlen" parameter, within the OSSL_PARAM array will not take effect as intended, potentially causing truncation or overreading of these values. The following ciphers and cipher modes are impacted: RC2, RC4, RC5, CCM, GCM and OCB. For the CCM, GCM and OCB cipher modes, truncation of the IV can result in loss of confidentiality. For example, when following NIST's SP 800-38D section 8.2.1 guidance for constructing a deterministic IV for AES in GCM mode, truncation of the counter portion could lead to IV reuse. Both truncations and overruns of the key and overruns of the IV will produce incorrect results and could, in some cases, trigger a memory exception. However, these issues are not currently assessed as security critical. Changing the key and/or IV lengths is not considered to be a common operation and the vulnerable API was recently introduced. Furthermore it is likely that application developers will have spotted this problem during testing since decryption would fail unless both peers in the communication were similarly vulnerable. For these reasons we expect the probability of an application being vulnerable to this to be quite low. However if an application is vulnerable then this issue is considered very serious. For these reasons we have assessed this issue as Moderate severity overall. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this because the issue lies outside of the FIPS provider boundary. OpenSSL 3.1 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue.
Source
openssl-security@openssl.org
NVD status
Modified
Products
openssl, debian_linux, h300s_firmware, h410s_firmware, h500s_firmware, h700s_firmware, h410c_firmware

Risk scores

CVSS 3.1

Type
Primary
Base score
7.5
Impact score
3.6
Exploitability score
3.9
Vector string
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Severity
HIGH

Weaknesses

openssl-security@openssl.org
CWE-684
nvd@nist.gov
NVD-CWE-noinfo

Social media

Hype score
Not currently trending

  1. 🔴 fast-xml-parser, XML Entity RangeError Denial of Service, #CVE-2023-5363 (Critical) https://t.co/V3bsOxjQgI

    @dailycve

    30 Jan 2026

    58 Impressions

    0 Retweets

    0 Likes

    0 Bookmarks

    0 Replies

    0 Quotes

Configurations

Related CVEs

  1. CVE-2026-12184
  2. Ivanti Connect Secure Authentication Bypass by Spoofing Vulnerability•CVE-2026-104935
  3. Citrix NetScaler Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer Vulnerability•CVE-2026-88779
  4. Issue summary: The first concurrent use of the same X.509 certificate by several threads may cause its cached extension data to be freed while another thread is still using it. Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated peer could crash a multi-threaded TLS client, or a multi-threaded TLS server that requests client certificates, if the first certificate chains built to the same trusted CA certificate are built by several connections at the same time. This is a use-after-free read, which is likely to crash the process, resulting in a Denial of Service. CWE: CWE-416: Use After Free Description: OpenSSL caches the decoded values of a certificate's X.509v3 extensions inside the X509 object the first time they are needed. In OpenSSL 4.0 this cache is built in two phases: the extension values are computed while holding a read lock on the certificate, and the results are then installed into the certificate under a write lock. Because a read lock does not exclude other readers, several threads can compute the cache for the same certificate at the same time. Each thread that subsequently acquires the write lock installs its own results and frees the values installed by the thread before it, even though that earlier thread has already marked the cache as complete and may have returned pointers into it to its caller. A caller still using those pointers then reads freed memory. Any certificate shared between threads is exposed the first time its extensions are decoded. In TLS the certificates at risk are the trusted CA certificates supplied for chain verification, by whatever means, since these are shared by every connection and their extensions are decoded and cached the first time a chain is built to them. Certificates sent by the peer are decoded separately for each connection and are not shared, so they are not affected. In a TLS client verifying server certificates, or a TLS server that requests and verifies client certificates, the use-after-free could only occur if the first chains built to the same trusted CA are built by several connections at the same time. FIPS impact: no The FIPS module is not affected as X.509 certificate handling is outside of the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 4.0 is vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are not affected by this issue. OpenSSL 4.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 4.0.3. This issue was reported on 27 August 2026 by Tim Becker (Xint.io) and independently in a public report on 31 August 2026 by aydinmercan. The fix has been developed by Bob Beck. -- cut (non-publishing metadata for internal use) -- Reported by: Tim Becker (Xint.io), aydinmercan Fixed by: Bob Beck•CVE-2026-84783
  5. Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle a handshake message write that is suspended part-way through. The retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and the retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write needs to resume correctly. Impact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory to the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial of Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region. CWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read Description: DTLS handshake messages can be written out in multiple fragments, and a write can suspend mid-message (returning WANT_WRITE) if the underlying transport temporarily cannot accept more data. While such a write is suspended, the DTLS retransmission timer may independently fire and ask the retransmission logic to resend an earlier, already-acknowledged-as-sent message from its retransmit queue. The retransmission logic reused the same internal buffer and position tracking as the message that was still being written, without resetting the position back to the start of the message being retransmitted. As a result the retransmission was read starting from wherever the suspended write had left off, producing a mislabelled message whose body was leftover bytes from the other, larger message still in flight - content that was never meant to be sent at that point, and which could run past the end of the allocated buffer. Separately, even when the retransmission is positioned correctly, allowing it to run to completion while another write is suspended overwrites the same shared bookkeeping that the suspended write depends on to resume. When the application later resumes the suspended write (via a subsequent SSL_read(), SSL_write(), SSL_accept(), or SSL_connect() call), it finds that bookkeeping in a state inconsistent with the message and aborts the process in a debugging build. The fix resets the retransmission's read position to the start of the message before resending, and skips retransmission entirely whenever a handshake write is still suspended, deferring to the next call that resumes it instead. FIPS impact: no The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.•CVE-2026-84782

References

Sources include official advisories and independent security research.