Vulnerabilities > CVE-2021-23839 - Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm vulnerability in multiple products

047910
CVSS 3.7 - LOW
Attack vector
NETWORK
Attack complexity
HIGH
Privileges required
NONE
Confidentiality impact
NONE
Integrity impact
LOW
Availability impact
NONE
network
high complexity
openssl
oracle
siemens
CWE-327
NVD
Published: 2021-02-16
Updated: 2024-06-21

Summary

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).

Vulnerable Configurations

Part Description Count
Application
Openssl
6
Application
Oracle
11
Application
Siemens
3

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Encryption Brute Forcing
    An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
  • Creating a Rogue Certificate Authority Certificate
    An attacker exploits a weakness in the MD5 hash algorithm (weak collision resistance) to generate a certificate signing request (CSR) that contains collision blocks in the "to be signed" part. The attacker specially crafts two different, but valid X.509 certificates that when hashed with the MD5 algorithm would yield the same value. The attacker then sends the CSR for one of the certificates to the Certification Authority which uses the MD5 hashing algorithm. That request is completely valid and the Certificate Authority issues an X.509 certificate to the attacker which is signed with its private key. An attacker then takes that signed blob and inserts it into another X.509 certificate that the attacker generated. Due to the MD5 collision, both certificates, though different, hash to the same value and so the signed blob works just as well in the second certificate. The net effect is that the attackers' second X.509 certificate, which the Certification Authority has never seen, is now signed and validated by that Certification Authority. To make the attack more interesting, the second certificate could be not just a regular certificate, but rather itself a signing certificate. Thus the attacker is able to start their own Certification Authority that is anchored in its root of trust in the legitimate Certification Authority that has signed the attackers' first X.509 certificate. If the original Certificate Authority was accepted by default by browsers, so will now the Certificate Authority set up by the attacker and of course any certificates that it signs. So the attacker is now able to generate any SSL certificates to impersonate any web server, and the user's browser will not issue any warning to the victim. This can be used to compromise HTTPS communications and other types of systems where PKI and X.509 certificates may be used (e.g., VPN, IPSec) .
  • Signature Spoof
    An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
  • Cryptanalysis
    Cryptanalysis is a process of finding weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms and using these weaknesses to decipher the ciphertext without knowing the secret key (instance deduction). Sometimes the weakness is not in the cryptographic algorithm itself, but rather in how it is applied that makes cryptanalysis successful. An attacker may have other goals as well, such as: 1. Total Break - Finding the secret key 2. Global Deduction - Finding a functionally equivalent algorithm for encryption and decryption that does not require knowledge of the secret key. 3. Information Deduction - Gaining some information about plaintexts or ciphertexts that was not previously known 4. Distinguishing Algorithm - The attacker has the ability to distinguish the output of the encryption (ciphertext) from a random permutation of bits The goal of the attacker performing cryptanalysis will depend on the specific needs of the attacker in a given attack context. In most cases, if cryptanalysis is successful at all, an attacker will not be able to go past being able to deduce some information about the plaintext (goal 3). However, that may be sufficient for an attacker, depending on the context.

References