OpenSSL 1.0.2 supports SSLv2. If a client attempts to negotiate SSLv2 with a server that is configured to support both SSLv2 and more recent SSL and TLS versions then a check is made for a version rollback attack when unpadding an RSA signature. Clients that support SSL or TLS versions greater than SSLv2 are supposed to use a special form of padding. A server that supports greater than SSLv2 is supposed to reject connection attempts from a client where this special form of padding is present, because this indicates that a version rollback has occurred (i.e. both client and server support greater than SSLv2, and yet this is the version that is being requested). The implementation of this padding check inverted the logic so that the connection attempt is accepted if the padding is present, and rejected if it is absent. This means that such as server will accept a connection if a version rollback attack has occurred. Further the server will erroneously reject a connection if a normal SSLv2 connection attempt is made. Only OpenSSL 1.0.2 servers from version 1.0.2s to 1.0.2x are affected by this issue. In order to be vulnerable a 1.0.2 server must: 1) have configured SSLv2 support at compile time (this is off by default), 2) have configured SSLv2 support at runtime (this is off by default), 3) have configured SSLv2 ciphersuites (these are not in the default ciphersuite list) OpenSSL 1.1.1 does not have SSLv2 support and therefore is not vulnerable to this issue. The underlying error is in the implementation of the RSA_padding_check_SSLv23() function. This also affects the RSA_SSLV23_PADDING padding mode used by various other functions. Although 1.1.1 does not support SSLv2 the RSA_padding_check_SSLv23() function still exists, as does the RSA_SSLV23_PADDING padding mode. Applications that directly call that function or use that padding mode will encounter this issue. However since there is no support for the SSLv2 protocol in 1.1.1 this is considered a bug and not a security issue in that version. OpenSSL 1.0.2 is out of support and no longer receiving public updates. Premium support customers of OpenSSL 1.0.2 should upgrade to 1.0.2y. Other users should upgrade to 1.1.1j. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2y (Affected 1.0.2s-1.0.2x).
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Openssl | Openssl | 1.0.2s (including) | 1.0.2x (including) |
| Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management for Kubernetes 2.3 for RHEL 7 | RedHat | rhacm2/management-ingress-rhel7:v2.3.0-36 | * |
| Edk2 | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Nodejs | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
| Openssl | Ubuntu | trusty | * |
Cryptographic algorithms are the methods by which data is scrambled to prevent observation or influence by unauthorized actors. Insecure cryptography can be exploited to expose sensitive information, modify data in unexpected ways, spoof identities of other users or devices, or other impacts. It is very difficult to produce a secure algorithm, and even high-profile algorithms by accomplished cryptographic experts have been broken. Well-known techniques exist to break or weaken various kinds of cryptography. Accordingly, there are a small number of well-understood and heavily studied algorithms that should be used by most products. Using a non-standard or known-insecure algorithm is dangerous because a determined adversary may be able to break the algorithm and compromise whatever data has been protected. Since the state of cryptography advances so rapidly, it is common for an algorithm to be considered “unsafe” even if it was once thought to be strong. This can happen when new attacks are discovered, or if computing power increases so much that the cryptographic algorithm no longer provides the amount of protection that was originally thought. For a number of reasons, this weakness is even more challenging to manage with hardware deployment of cryptographic algorithms as opposed to software implementation. First, if a flaw is discovered with hardware-implemented cryptography, the flaw cannot be fixed in most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary’s computing power will only increase over time.