Encrypt-Then-Mac renegotiation crash
During a renegotiation handshake if the Encrypt-Then-Mac extension is negotiated where it was not in the original handshake (or vice-versa) then this can cause OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0e to crash (dependent on ciphersuite). Both clients and servers are affected.
- Published
- May 4, 2017
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 12.9% · 96th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-20
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
34
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 30 / 40 · 7.5 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 4 / 30 · 12.9%
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| openssl | openssl | cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl |
| hp | operations agent | cpe:2.3:a:hp:operations_agent |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- hp operations agent11.14
- hp operations agent11.15
- openssl openssl1.1.0
- openssl openssl1.1.0a
- openssl openssl1.1.0b
- openssl openssl1.1.0c
- openssl openssl1.1.0d
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (openssl). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
OpenSSL OpenSSL
- openssl-1.1.0, openssl-1.1.0a, openssl-1.1.0b, openssl-1.1.0c, openssl-1.1.0daffected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian:12 | openssl | before 1.1.0e-1 | 1.1.0e-1 |
Same product
openssl: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2014-0160The (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1g do not properly handle Heartbeat Extension packets, which allows remKEV90Now
- CVE-2021-3711SM2 Decryption Buffer Overflow65This week
- CVE-2003-0545Double free vulnerability in OpenSSL 0.9.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code 65This week
- CVE-2016-2108The ASN.1 implementation in OpenSSL before 1.0.1o and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2c allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denia62This week
- CVE-2016-6309statem/statem.c in OpenSSL 1.1.0a does not consider memory-block movement after a realloc call, which allows remote attackers to cause a den60This week
- CVE-2022-3786X.509 Email Address Variable Length Buffer Overflow58Plan
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| debian:openssl | 1.1.0e-1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-20 · Improper Input ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Server Side Include (SSI) InjectionCAPEC-101likelihood: High · High
- Cross Zone ScriptingCAPEC-104likelihood: Medium · High
- Command Line Execution through SQL InjectionCAPEC-108likelihood: Low · Very High
- Object Relational Mapping InjectionCAPEC-109likelihood: Low · High
- SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter TamperingCAPEC-110likelihood: High · Very High
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Subverting Environment Variable ValuesCAPEC-13likelihood: High · Very High
ATT&CK techniques
- Obfuscated Files or InformationT1027
- Masquerading: Invalid Code SignatureT1036.001
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Subvert Trust Controls: Code SigningT1553.002
- Impair Defenses:Impair Command History LoggingT1562.003
- Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker HijackingT1574.006
- Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment VariableT1574.007
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
- www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html
- www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html
- www.securityfocus.com/bid/96269
- www.securitytracker.com/id/1037846
- github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/4ad93618d26a3ea23d36ad5498ff4f59eff3a4d2
- h20566.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en_US&docId=emr_na-hpesbgn03728en_us
- www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20170216.txt
- www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2019-5072813.html
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.