ghsa-mfm6-r9g2-q4r7
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-04 00:00
Modified
2022-06-17 00:05
Summary
`OCSP_basic_verify` may incorrectly verify the response signing certificate
Details

The function OCSP_basic_verify verifies the signer certificate on an OCSP response. In the case where the (non-default) flag OCSP_NOCHECKS is used then the response will be positive (meaning a successful verification) even in the case where the response signing certificate fails to verify. It is anticipated that most users of OCSP_basic_verify will not use the OCSP_NOCHECKS flag. In this case the OCSP_basic_verify function will return a negative value (indicating a fatal error) in the case of a certificate verification failure. The normal expected return value in this case would be 0. This issue also impacts the command line OpenSSL "ocsp" application. When verifying an ocsp response with the "-no_cert_checks" option the command line application will report that the verification is successful even though it has in fact failed. In this case the incorrect successful response will also be accompanied by error messages showing the failure and contradicting the apparently successful result. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2).

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "openssl-src"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "300.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "300.0.6"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-1343"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-295"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-17T00:05:49Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-05-03T16:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The function `OCSP_basic_verify` verifies the signer certificate on an OCSP response. In the case where the (non-default) flag OCSP_NOCHECKS is used then the response will be positive (meaning a successful verification) even in the case where the response signing certificate fails to verify. It is anticipated that most users of `OCSP_basic_verify` will not use the OCSP_NOCHECKS flag. In this case the `OCSP_basic_verify` function will return a negative value (indicating a fatal error) in the case of a certificate verification failure. The normal expected return value in this case would be 0. This issue also impacts the command line OpenSSL \"ocsp\" application. When verifying an ocsp response with the \"-no_cert_checks\" option the command line application will report that the verification is successful even though it has in fact failed. In this case the incorrect successful response will also be accompanied by error messages showing the failure and contradicting the apparently successful result. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2).",
  "id": "GHSA-mfm6-r9g2-q4r7",
  "modified": "2022-06-17T00:05:49Z",
  "published": "2022-05-04T00:00:23Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1343"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/github/advisory-database/issues/405"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-953464.pdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=2eda98790c5c2741d76d23cc1e74b0dc4f4b391a"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2022-0027.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20220602-0009"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20220503.txt"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "`OCSP_basic_verify` may incorrectly verify the response signing certificate"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.