CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2014-3509

Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

Published: Aug 13, 2014 | Modified: Apr 12, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
5.1 MODERATE
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

Race condition in the ssl_parse_serverhello_tlsext function in t1_lib.c in OpenSSL 1.0.0 before 1.0.0n and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1i, when multithreading and session resumption are used, allows remote SSL servers to cause a denial of service (memory overwrite and client application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by sending Elliptic Curve (EC) Supported Point Formats Extension data.

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0 (including) 1.0.0 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0-beta1 (including) 1.0.0-beta1 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0-beta2 (including) 1.0.0-beta2 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0-beta3 (including) 1.0.0-beta3 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0-beta4 (including) 1.0.0-beta4 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0-beta5 (including) 1.0.0-beta5 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0a (including) 1.0.0a (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0b (including) 1.0.0b (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0c (including) 1.0.0c (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0d (including) 1.0.0d (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0e (including) 1.0.0e (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0f (including) 1.0.0f (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0g (including) 1.0.0g (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0h (including) 1.0.0h (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0i (including) 1.0.0i (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0j (including) 1.0.0j (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0k (including) 1.0.0k (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0l (including) 1.0.0l (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.0m (including) 1.0.0m (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1 (including) 1.0.1 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1-beta1 (including) 1.0.1-beta1 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1-beta2 (including) 1.0.1-beta2 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1-beta3 (including) 1.0.1-beta3 (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1a (including) 1.0.1a (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1b (including) 1.0.1b (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1c (including) 1.0.1c (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1d (including) 1.0.1d (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1e (including) 1.0.1e (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1f (including) 1.0.1f (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1g (including) 1.0.1g (including)
Openssl Openssl 1.0.1h (including) 1.0.1h (including)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat openssl-0:1.0.1e-16.el6_5.15 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat openssl-1:1.0.1e-34.el7_0.4 *
Red Hat Storage 2.1 RedHat openssl-0:1.0.1e-16.el6_5.15 *
RHEV Manager version 3.5 RedHat spice-client-msi-0:3.5-2 *
Openssl Ubuntu devel *
Openssl Ubuntu esm-infra-legacy/trusty *
Openssl Ubuntu precise *
Openssl Ubuntu trusty *
Openssl Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Openssl Ubuntu upstream *

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Potential Mitigations

  • Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
  • Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

References