CVE-2023-3817: Excessive time spent checking DH q parameter value
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 22/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 3% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 87.5% of all records.
- 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.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: OpenSSL OpenSSL 3.0.10, 3.1.2; azl3 edk2 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37 on Azure Linux 3.0 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37; azl3 rust 1.68.2-5 on Azure Linux 3.0 1.68.2-5.
- Mentioned 1 time in Turkish national cyber security advisories (siberguvenlik.gov.tr).
Low priority for now. Upgrade to OpenSSL OpenSSL 3.0.10, 3.1.2; azl3 edk2 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37 on Azure Linux 3.0 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37; azl3 rust 1.68.2-5 on Azure Linux 3.0 1.68.2-5 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Issue summary: Checking excessively long DH keys or parameters may be very slow. Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_check(), DH_check_ex() or EVP_PKEY_param_check() to check a DH key or DH parameters may experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. The function DH_check() performs various checks on DH parameters. After fixing CVE-2023-3446 it was discovered that a large q parameter value can also trigger an overly long computation during some of these checks. A correct q value, if present, cannot be larger than the modulus p parameter, thus it is unnecessary to perform these checks if q is larger than p. An application that calls DH_check() and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. The function DH_check() is itself called by a number of other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this are DH_check_ex() and EVP_PKEY_param_check(). Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL dhparam and pkeyparam command line applications when using the "-check" option. 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 issue.
- BDU:2023-04960
- ALSA-2023:7877
- ALSA-2024:2447
- DLA-3530-1
- openSUSE-SU-2024:13090-1
- openSUSE-SU-2024:13097-1
- openSUSE-SU-2024:13111-1
- RHSA-2023:5931
- RHSA-2023:7622
- RHSA-2023:7625
- RHSA-2023:7877
- RHSA-2024:0154
- RHSA-2024:0208
- RHSA-2024:2447
- RLSA-2023:7877
- SUSE-SU-2023:3239-1
- SUSE-SU-2023:3242-1
- SUSE-SU-2023:3243-1
- SUSE-SU-2023:3244-1
- SUSE-SU-2023:3244-2
- Published
- Jul 31, 2023
- Updated
- Oct 14, 2026
- EPSS
- 3.0% · 87th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-606
Report tools
Action score
22
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 21 / 40 · 5.3 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 1 / 30 · 3.0%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 5.3
- CNA · openssl
- 5.3
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| openssl | openssl | cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl |
Check your server's TLS configuration
The OpenSSL version can't be seen from outside; the free SSL checker tests your certificate, enabled TLS versions and weak ciphers. Confirm the version on your server with the package manager.
Run the SSL checkAffected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- openssl openssl3.0.0 and later · before 3.0.10
- openssl openssl3.1.0 and later · before 3.1.2
- openssl openssl1.0.2
- openssl openssl1.0.2a
- openssl openssl1.0.2b
- openssl openssl1.0.2c
- openssl openssl1.0.2d
- openssl openssl1.0.2e
- openssl openssl1.0.2f
- openssl openssl1.0.2g
- openssl openssl1.0.2h
- openssl openssl1.0.2i
- openssl openssl1.0.2j
- openssl openssl1.0.2k
- openssl openssl1.0.2l
- openssl openssl1.0.2m
- openssl openssl1.0.2n
- openssl openssl1.0.2o
- openssl openssl1.0.2p
- openssl openssl1.0.2q
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
- 3.1.0 and later · before 3.1.2affected · semver
- 3.0.0 and later · before 3.0.10affected · semver
- 1.1.1 and later · before 1.1.1vaffected
- 1.0.2 and later · before 1.0.2ziaffected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| AlmaLinux:8 | openssl | before 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 |
| AlmaLinux:8 | openssl-devel | before 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 |
| AlmaLinux:8 | openssl-libs | before 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 |
| AlmaLinux:8 | openssl-perl | before 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 |
| AlmaLinux:9 | openssl | before 1:3.0.7-27.el9 | 1:3.0.7-27.el9 |
| AlmaLinux:9 | openssl-devel | before 1:3.0.7-27.el9 | 1:3.0.7-27.el9 |
| AlmaLinux:9 | openssl-libs | before 1:3.0.7-27.el9 | 1:3.0.7-27.el9 |
| AlmaLinux:9 | openssl-perl | before 1:3.0.7-27.el9 | 1:3.0.7-27.el9 |
| Alpine:v3.15 | openssl | from 3.0.0 · before 1.1.1v-r0 | 1.1.1v-r0 |
| Alpine:v3.15 | openssl3 | before 3.0.11-r0 | 3.0.11-r0 |
| Alpine:v3.17 | openssl | from 3.0.0 · before 3.0.10-r0 | 3.0.10-r0 |
| Alpine:v3.18 | openssl | from 3.0.0 · before 3.1.2-r0 | 3.1.2-r0 |
| Debian:10 | openssl | before 1.1.1n-0+deb10u6 | 1.1.1n-0+deb10u6 |
| Debian:12 | openssl | before 3.0.10-1~deb12u1 | 3.0.10-1~deb12u1 |
| Debian:13 | openssl | before 3.0.10-1 | 3.0.10-1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.4 | openssl-1_0_0 | before 1.0.2p-150000.3.85.1 | 1.0.2p-150000.3.85.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.4 | openssl-3 | before 3.0.8-150400.4.34.1 | 3.0.8-150400.4.34.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.5 | openssl-1_1 | before 1.1.1l-150500.17.15.1 | 1.1.1l-150500.17.15.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.5 | openssl-3 | before 3.0.8-150500.5.11.1 | 3.0.8-150500.5.11.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap 15.5 | openssl-3 | before 3.0.8-150500.5.14.1 | 3.0.8-150500.5.14.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap Micro 5.3 | openssl-1_1 | before 1.1.1l-150400.7.53.1 | 1.1.1l-150400.7.53.1 |
| openSUSE:Leap Micro 5.3 | openssl-3 | before 3.0.8-150400.4.37.1 | 3.0.8-150400.4.37.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | openssl-1_0_0 | before 1.0.2u-22.1 | 1.0.2u-22.1 |
| openSUSE:Tumbleweed | openssl-1_1 | before 1.1.1v-1.1 | 1.1.1v-1.1 |
+96
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
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-2975Jul 14, 2023 · AES-SIV implementation ignores empty associated data entries21Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-3446Jul 19, 2023 · Excessive time spent checking DH keys and parameters23Monitor
- Later →CVE-2023-4807Sep 8, 2023 · POLY1305 MAC implementation corrupts XMM registers on Windows31Monitor
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 |
|---|---|---|
| OpenSSL OpenSSL | 3.0.10 | Vendor (CNA) |
| OpenSSL OpenSSL | 3.1.2 | Vendor (CNA) |
| azl3 edk2 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37 on Azure Linux 3.0 | 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| azl3 rust 1.68.2-5 on Azure Linux 3.0 | 1.68.2-5 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| cbl2 edk2 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37 on CBL Mariner 2.0 | 20230301gitf80f052277c8-37 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| cbl2 hvloader 1.0.1-11 on CBL Mariner 2.0 | 1.0.1-3 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| cbl2 hvloader 1.0.1-9 on CBL Mariner 2.0 | 1.0.1-9 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| cbl2 openssl 1.1.1k-26 on CBL Mariner 2.0 | 1.1.1k-26 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| cbl2 rust 1.68.2-5 on CBL Mariner 2.0 | 1.68.2-5 · CBL-Mariner Releases | Microsoft (MSRC) |
| almalinux:openssl | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 · AlmaLinux:8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| almalinux:openssl-devel | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 · AlmaLinux:8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| almalinux:openssl-libs | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 · AlmaLinux:8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| almalinux:openssl-perl | 1:1.1.1k-12.el8_9 · AlmaLinux:8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| alpine:openssl | 1.1.1v-r0 · Alpine:v3.15 | Package registry (OSV) |
| alpine:openssl3 | 3.0.11-r0 · Alpine:v3.15 | Package registry (OSV) |
| debian:openssl | 3.0.10-1~deb12u1 · Debian:12 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:openssl-1_0_0 | 1.0.2p-150000.3.85.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.4 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:openssl-1_1 | 1.1.1l-150500.17.15.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.5 | Package registry (OSV) |
| opensuse:openssl-3 | 3.0.8-150500.5.11.1 · openSUSE:Leap 15.5 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite_capsule:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-cli | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite_utils:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-debug | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite_capsule:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-dynflow-sidekiq | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-ec2 | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-journald | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-libvirt | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-openstack | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-ovirt | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-postgresql | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
| red hat:foreman-service | 0:3.5.1.23-1.el8sat · Red Hat:satellite:6.13::el8 | Package registry (OSV) |
+7
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.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
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.
- Bernd Edlingerfinder
- Tomas Mrazremediation developer
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).
National notice (Türkiye Cybersecurity Directorate / USOM)
Official security notices citing this record; remediation advice is on the agency's page.
- TR-23-0602 · Oct 25, 2023(OpenSSL Güvenlik Zafiyeti)
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
- low · 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
- Low
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-606 · Unchecked Input for Loop ConditionCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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.
MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (18 more)Show less
- git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=869ad69aadd985c7b8ca6f4e5dd0eb274c9f3644
- git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=9002fd07327a91f35ba6c1307e71fa6fd4409b7f
- git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=91ddeba0f2269b017dc06c46c993a788974b1aa5
- www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20230731.txt
- seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2023/Jul/43
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/07/31/1
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/09/22/11
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/09/22/9
- www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/11/06/2
- lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2023/08/msg00019.html
- security.gentoo.org/glsa/202402-08
- security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230818-0014/
- security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20231027-0008/
- security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240621-0006/
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-099606.html
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-398330.html
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-915275.html
- cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-943925.html
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.