The TLS protocol, and the SSL protocol 3.0 and possibly earlier, as used in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.0, mod_ssl in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.14 and earlier, OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, GnuTLS 2.8.5 and earlier, Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) 3.12.4 and earlier, multiple Cisco products, and other products, does not properly associate renegotiation handshakes with an existing connection, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to insert data into HTTPS sessions, and possibly other types of sessions protected by TLS or SSL, by sending an unauthenticated request that is processed retroactively by a server in a post-renegotiation context, related to a "plaintext injection" attack, aka the "Project Mogul" issue.
CVE-2009-3555
“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.
Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2022-05-02. NVD baseline CVSS 9.8; sources differ by 0.0.
Also known asEUVD-2022-3720 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- 41 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running an affected version — derived from Shodan data (© Shodan); a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open
- High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 87%
- Public exploit code is available (Exploit-DB, marked verified by Exploit-DB, other public proof-of-concept code)
A fix is available — apply it.
41 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running a version that maps to CVE-2009-3555, in our KEV-Exposure radar’s Shodan-derived sample.
How it counts: every 12 hours, when Shodan query credits allow, the radar runs one Shodan query per tracked product, reads up to 100 ip:port services per query, and keeps a service when its banner version matches a CISA-KEV or high-EPSS CVE; a service is dropped when neither a search nor a Shodan InternetDB port re-check has refreshed it for 21 days. A re-check that finds the port still listed by Shodan InternetDB refreshes the service without re-reading the banner, so a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open. A count is a banner-version inference over a sample, not an exploit test and not an internet-wide census, and the unit is a service, not a machine: a machine answering on two ports counts twice.
- CVSS v3
- 9.8
- EG Score
- 9.8CRITICALmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 94EG Risk 94/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity98% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation87% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability100% × 15%CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high. - EPSS PROB
- 87%
- EPSS %ILE
- 99th
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 87% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track* at medium mission impactTrack at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
November 9, 2009
Last Modified
May 27, 2026
Advisory Details (1)
Auto-updated Oct 8, 2026G-SEC - Blog: TLS / SSLv3 renegotiation vulnerability explained (Update #2)(
http://blog.g-sec.lu/2009/11/tls-sslv3-renegotiation-vulnerability.htmlVendor Advisories for CVE-2009-3555(20)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
- GHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6GitHub Security AdvisoriesCritical
Apache Tomcat affected by vulnerability in TLS and SSL protocol
- RHSA-2015:1591Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Satellite 6.1.1 on RHEL 7
- RHSA-2011:0880Red Hat Product SecurityLow
Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Network Satellite server IBM Java Runtime security update
- RHSA-2010:0987Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.6.0-ibm security and bug fix update
- RHSA-2010:0986Red Hat Product SecurityMedium
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.4.2-ibm-sap security update
- RHSA-2010:0865Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.6.0-openjdk security and bug fix update
- RHSA-2010:0807Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.5.0-ibm security update
- RHSA-2010:0786Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.4.2-ibm security update
- +12 more
Patch Availability(33)
Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.
Affected Packages
(36 across 10 ecosystems)
Debian:11(7)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| apache2 | — |
| — |
| lighttpd | — |
| — |
| nginx | — |
| — |
| nss | — |
| — |
| openssl | — |
| — |
| pound | — |
| — |
| tomcat-native | — |
| — |
Debian:13(7)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| apache2 | — |
| — |
| lighttpd | — |
| — |
| nginx | — |
| — |
| nss | — |
| — |
| openssl | — |
| — |
| pound | — |
| — |
| tomcat-native | — |
| — |
Debian:14(7)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| apache2 | — |
| — |
| lighttpd | — |
| — |
| nginx | — |
| — |
| nss | — |
| — |
| openssl | — |
| — |
| pound | — |
| — |
| tomcat-native | — |
| — |
Debian:12(6)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| apache2 | — |
| — |
| lighttpd | — |
| — |
| nginx | — |
| — |
| nss | — |
| — |
| openssl | — |
| — |
| tomcat-native | — |
| — |
Debian:5.0(3)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| apache2 | 2.2.9-10+lenny2, 2.2.9-10+lenny3, 2.2.9-10+lenny4, 2.2.9-10+lenny5 |
| — |
| nss | 3.12.0-5 ... 3.12.3.1-0lenny2 (8 versions) |
| — |
| openssl | 0.9.8g-15 ... 0.9.8g-15+lenny9 (8 versions) |
| — |
Debian:6.0(2)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| lighttpd | 1.4.28-2, 1.4.28-2+squeeze1, 1.4.28-2+squeeze1.1 |
| — |
| pound | 2.5-1, 2.5-1.1, 2.6-1 |
| — |
Debian:4.0(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| apache2 | 2.2.3-4 ... 2.2.3-4+etch9 (10 versions) |
| — |
Debian:7(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| pound | 2.6-2 |
| — |
Debian:8(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| pound | 2.6-6 |
| — |
Maven(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| org.apache.tomcat:tomcat | — |
| — |
Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Additional Vendor Advisories
(8)
Vendors that published advisories for this CVE beyond the curated set above. Broader coverage but minimal per-row detail — click through for the original advisory.
- Red HatRHSA-2009:1579MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2009:1579 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2009:1580MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2009:1580 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2009:1694MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2009:1694 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2010:0011MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2010:0011 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2010:0119MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2010:0119 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2010:0130MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2010:0130 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2010:0155MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2010:0155 — Moderate
- Red HatRHSA-2010:0162MODERATE2009-11-05
RHSA-2010:0162 — Moderate
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 19× in last 7d / 54× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
Showing the most recent 92 of 133 refreshes on record for this CVE.
A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 8 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 41 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
- 2026-11-02 15:22 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-11-02 15:22 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-11-02 15:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
- 2026-11-01 14:55 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-11-01 14:53 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-11-01 14:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
- 2026-11-01 08:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
- 2026-11-01 08:52 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-31 14:25 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-31 14:25 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-30 13:56 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-30 13:56 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-29 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-29 13:27 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-29 13:27 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-28 12:57 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-28 12:57 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-27 12:28 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-27 12:28 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-26 12:00 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-25 20:22 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-25 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-25 11:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-25 11:17 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-24 10:48 UTCEG score recompute
Show 67 moreShow fewer
- 2026-10-24 10:48 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-23 10:19 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-23 10:19 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-22 09:48 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-22 09:48 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-21 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-21 09:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-21 09:17 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-20 08:48 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-20 08:48 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-19 08:18 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-19 08:18 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-18 07:49 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-18 07:49 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-17 07:19 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-17 07:19 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-16 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-16 06:49 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 06:49 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-15 05:32 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-15 05:32 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-14 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-14 01:10 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-14 01:10 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-12 21:18 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-12 21:18 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-12 01:52 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-09 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-06 15:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-03 03:39 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-09-29 08:00 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-09-24 13:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-14 01:19 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-09-12 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-10 09:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-05 15:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-04 13:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-28 21:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-27 14:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-26 02:39 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-08-19 16:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-09 19:09 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-08-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-03 10:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-30 16:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-25 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-24 19:41 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-07-24 14:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-23 01:00 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-23 00:37 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-23 00:04 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 21:43 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 14:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-15 16:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-13 06:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-11 08:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-07 15:11 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-07-05 02:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-28 04:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-23 21:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-21 14:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-19 02:35 UTCOSV refresh
- 2026-06-17 17:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-15 17:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
- 2026-06-14 23:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 4.3% · 89th percentile
Publicly available exploits
(3 references)Public exploit code is referenced for this CVE (2 Exploit-DB entries, 1 GitHub PoC). Defenders should treat patch urgency accordingly.
- Exploit-DBEDB-10579✓ verifiedPublished Dec 21, 2009
TLS - Renegotiation
Open source ↗ - Exploit-DBEDB-10071✓ verifiedPublished Nov 10, 2009
Mozilla NSS - NULL Character CA SSL Certificate Validation Security Bypass
Open source ↗ - GitHub PoCjohnwchadwick/cve-2009-3555-test-serverPublished Mar 30, 2022
A TLS server using a vendored fork of the Go TLS stack that has renegotation indication extension forcibly disabled.
Open source ↗
Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)
Same product
10 shownDebian:6.0:pound · Debian:7:pound · Debian:5.0:nss
- CVE-2012-4929EG 2.6EPSS p91LOW
- CVE-2014-3566NVD 3.4EG 9.0EPSS p100CRITICAL
- CVE-2011-3389EG 4.3EPSS p99MEDIUM
- CVE-2016-10711EG 9.8CRITICAL
- CVE-2009-2409EG 5.1EPSS p91MEDIUM
- CVE-2018-8020EG 7.4EPSS p91HIGH
- CVE-2018-8019EG 7.4EPSS p91HIGH
- CVE-2017-15698EG 5.9MEDIUM
- CVE-2009-1891EG 7.1EPSS p97HIGH
- CVE-2009-1890EG 7.1EPSS p97HIGH
Same vendor
10 shownredhat:RHSA-2010:0768
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2009-3555?
When was CVE-2009-3555 made public?
Is CVE-2009-3555 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2009-3555?
How do I remediate CVE-2009-3555?
Dependency Blast Radius
See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2009-3555
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2009-3555?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.