🎯 CVE-2024-12797 MEDIUM 6.3 🔥 EPSS 2.5% 🧪 PoC 🇪🇺 EUVD
📄 .md Alle CVEs anzeigen ✕

CVE-2024-12797 | Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TL

Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a
server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because
handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode
is set.

Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be
vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not
detected by clients.

RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue
only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the
server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate
chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to
fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,
by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.

Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw
public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those
that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was
introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.

The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.

Klassifikation & Betroffenheit:
OpenSSL OpenSSL 3.4.0 <3.4.1OpenSSL 3.2.0 <3.2.4OpenSSL 3.3.0 <3.3.3
Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') 🎯 Medium

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.

🛡️ Empfohlene Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Vollständige Definition bei MITRE ➔
🩹 Patch verfügbar (OSV):
🩹 a26d85337dbdcd33c971f38eb3fa5150e75cea87 (Commit) 🩹 42768eafab40d3e2f0851caa84aa9801139c74ab (Commit)
📚 Referenzen & Quellen:
Ausnutzungs-Zeitleiste:
CVSS-Vektor-Analyse: 6.3
AV · Angriffsvektor Netzwerk
AC · Komplexität Gering
PR · Privilegien Keine
UI · Interaktion Erforderlich
S · Scope Unverändert
C · Vertraulichkeit Gering
I · Integrität Gering
A · Verfügbarkeit Gering
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Veröffentlicht:11.02.2025
Aktualisiert:17.06.2026 07:00
Assigner (CNA):openssl
EUVD-ID:EUVD-2024-51115
Quellen: 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank (ENISA) + 🇺🇸 NVD-Anreicherung · 24-h-Cache
CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.
🔴 Live Security Advisory & EPSS Exploit Radar

Zero-Day & Vulnerability Intelligence Hub

Echtzeit-Tracking mit EPSS Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeiten, Angriffsvektor-Decodern und KI-Patch-Anleitungen.

354k+ 🇪🇺 EUVD-Datenbank
0 🔴 Critical im Radar
0 ⚠️ CISA KEV
0 🔓 Aktiv ausgenutzt
1 🧪 PoC verfügbar
📊 Historien-Charts — Criticals-Trend · Vendors · EPSS-Verteilung
🔴 Criticals pro Monat (12 M) 2025-09: 224 2025-10: 316 2025-11: 257 2025-12: 426 2026-01: 431 2026-02: 418 2026-03: 652 2026-04: 574 2026-05: 683 2026-06: 942 2026-07: 1333 2026-08: 1329 7.585 Criticals gesamt
🏢 Top-Vendor-Veröffentlichungen (6 M) Adobe Apple Google Linux Microsoft Oracle Corporation
● Adobe ● Apple ● Google ● Linux ● Microsoft ● Oracle
📈 EPSS-Verteilung (Messungen)
Tier2026-08-292026-09-06
≥90 %40
≥50 %40
≥10 %30
<10 %304300
Frühindikator · FIRST.org
Datenquellen & Methodik: Primärquelle ist die EUVD der ENISA (laufender Datenbank-Sync, alle 15 Minuten), abgeglichen mit dem CISA-KEV-Katalog und der NVD — Detail-Dossiers reichern fehlende Felder live per NVD an — mit Fallback auf CIRCL vulnerability-lookup (EU/Non-Profit, aggregiert CVE-, GitHub- und OSV-Advisories). Der CISA-KEV-Katalog (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, ~1.700 aktiv ausgenutzte Schwachstellen) wird bei jedem Sync vollständig neu geladen und kreuzreferenziert — filterbar über die KEV-Pille. CVSS 3.1 wird nach Ampel-Logik aus Verteidigersicht dekodiert; EPSS bezeichnet die 30-Tage-Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit (FIRST.org).
🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD 🇺🇸 NVD ⚠️ CISA KEV ⚡ EPSS
Ökosystem & Hersteller Bedrohungs-Matrix:
OpenSSL 1
Schweregrad & Status:
Hersteller (Datenbank-weit, 90.597 Einträge):
Quelle:
Schwachstellen-Kategorie (CWE):
🔍
6.3 MEDIUM
🇪🇺 EUVD
EPSS 2.5%
CVE-2024-12797 🌐 Netzwerk (Remote) 🔓 Keine Authentifizierung nötig
🧪 OpenSSL

CVE-2024-12797 | Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TL

Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Im

CWE-94: Code Injection ✓ Offizieller Patch / Advisory verfügbar
💡 Gegenmaßnahme: Sicherheits-Update des Herstellers zeitnah einspielen und Netzwerksegmentierung prüfen.