Skip to content
Noroxi
CVE-2023-6937· NVD / CVE Program· CNA wolfSSL

Improper (D)TLS key boundary enforcement

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 21/100)

  • 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: 0.51% (FIRST EPSS).
  • 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: Azure Linux 3.0 ARM 10.11.10-1; Azure Linux 3.0 x64 10.11.10-1; CBL Mariner 2.0 ARM 10.6.20-1.

Low priority for now. Upgrade to Azure Linux 3.0 ARM 10.11.10-1; Azure Linux 3.0 x64 10.11.10-1; CBL Mariner 2.0 ARM 10.6.20-1 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

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.

MediumCVSS 5.3 · v3.1—No exploit Fix available
Published
Feb 15, 2024
Updated
Jun 17, 2026
EPSS
0.5% · 42th percentile

Report tools

JSON

Action score

21

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS
21 / 40 · 5.3 / 10
CISA KEV
0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS
0 / 30 · 0.5%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation
none
Automatable
yes
Technical impact
partial

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD
5.3
CNA · wolfSSL
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.

Follow CVE-2023-6937

When you'll hear from us

  • when it enters CISA KEV
  • when exploit code appears or is weaponized
  • when the record is updated (including a fixed version)
  • when EPSS rises 20 points in a week

One daily email digest (06:00 UTC); connect a webhook for KEV listings and weaponized exploits instantly.

Your free account also gets you

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

  • Stack alerts: add the products and versions you run, get the new CVEs that affect them
  • Uptime monitoring: 1 site, instant email when it goes down
  • Add your domain: subdomains and takeover risk scanned every week (1 domain)
  • 10 scans an hour on the security tools (3 a day without an account), an API key and MCP
  • All your scans in one panel: findings, what changed in the last scan, a report per domain or per client (PDF, share link)
All free tools

Sign up with email · Have an account? Sign in

Free account, no card. Unfollow any time.

Don't want an account? Get "Exploited this week" by email every MondayDon't want an account? RSS feed for wolfssl records

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

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 help

Affected 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.

VendorProduct
wolfsslwolfssl

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

  • wolfssl wolfsslbefore 5.6.6

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (wolfSSL). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

  • wolfSSL wolfSSL

    • up to and including 5.6.4affected · release bundle

Package-level exposure

OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.

EcosystemPackageAffected rangeFix
Debian:12wolfsslall versions—
Debian:13wolfsslbefore 5.6.6-1.25.6.6-1.2

Same product

wolfssl: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

  • CVE-2019-11873wolfSSL 4.0.0 has a Buffer Overflow in DoPreSharedKeys in tls13.c when a current identity size is greater than a client identity size.
    42Plan
  • CVE-2017-2800A specially crafted x509 certificate can cause a single out of bounds byte overwrite in wolfSSL through 3.10.2 resulting in potential certif
    42Plan
  • CVE-2024-5991Buffer overread in domain name matching
    40Plan
  • CVE-2020-36177RsaPad_PSS in wolfcrypt/src/rsa.c in wolfSSL before 4.6.0 has an out-of-bounds write for certain relationships between key size and digest s
    40Plan
  • CVE-2014-2898wolfSSL CyaSSL before 2.9.4 allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact via multiple calls to the CyaSSL_read function which triggers
    40Plan
  • CVE-2014-2897The SSL 3 HMAC functionality in wolfSSL CyaSSL 2.5.0 before 2.9.4 does not check the padding length when verification fails, which allows re
    40Plan

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

Product / packageFixed versionSource
Azure Linux 3.0 ARM10.11.10-1 · mariadbMicrosoft (MSRC)
Azure Linux 3.0 x6410.11.10-1 · mariadbMicrosoft (MSRC)
CBL Mariner 2.0 ARM10.6.20-1 · mariadbMicrosoft (MSRC)
CBL Mariner 2.0 x6410.6.20-1 · mariadbMicrosoft (MSRC)
debian:wolfssl5.6.6-1.2 · Debian:13Package 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.

EPSS, last 120 days

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 researchers

Finders, 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.

  • CVE-2023-3724213 days apartTLS 1.3 client issue handling malicious server when not including a KSE and PSK extension
    35Monitor

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
low · data can be read
Integrity
none
Availability
none
Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality impact
Low
Integrity impact
None
Availability impact
None

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

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.

Change log

  1. Fix✗ → ✓

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

Show all references (1 more)

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records