The RC4 algorithm, as used in the TLS protocol and SSL protocol, does not properly combine state data with key data during the initialization phase, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct plaintext-recovery attacks against the initial bytes of a stream by sniffing network traffic that occasionally relies on keys affected by the Invariance Weakness, and then using a brute-force approach involving LSB values, aka the "Bar Mitzvah" issue.
CVE-2015-2808
“▲” beside the score: it is higher than NVD's CVSS score.
Score 10.0 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: MODERATE) published 2022-05-13. NVD baseline CVSS 3.7; sources differ by 6.3.
Also known asEUVD-2015-2896 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 74%
A fix is available — apply it.
- CVSS v3
- 3.7
- EG Score
- 10.0CRITICALmedium confidence
- EG Risk
- 75EG Risk 75/100
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)Severity100% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 10.0 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation74% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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. - EPSS PROB
- 74%
- 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 (10.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 10.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 10.0 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 74% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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
April 1, 2015
Last Modified
May 28, 2026
Advisory Details (3)
Auto-updated May 27, 2026Vendor Advisories for CVE-2015-2808(13)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
- GHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmmGitHub Security AdvisoriesMedium
The RC4 algorithm, as used in the TLS protocol and SSL protocol, does not properly combine state...
- RHSA-2015:1526Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.6.0-openjdk security update
- RHSA-2015:1241Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.8.0-oracle security update
- RHSA-2015:1242Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.7.0-oracle security update
- RHSA-2015:1243Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.6.0-sun security update
- RHSA-2015:1228Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.8.0-openjdk security update
- RHSA-2015:1229Red Hat Product SecurityCritical
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.7.0-openjdk security update
- RHSA-2015:1230Red Hat Product SecurityHigh
Red Hat Security Advisory: java-1.7.0-openjdk security update
- +5 more
Patch Availability(14)
| Vendor / Ecosystem | Fix (by version range) / Patch | Released | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ubuntu | openjdk-7-jre (7u79-2.5.6-0ubuntu1.15.04.1) @ vivid | 2026-11-01 | ubuntu |
| ubuntu | openjdk-6-jre-lib (6b36-1.13.8-0ubuntu1~12.04) @ precise | 2026-11-01 | ubuntu |
| ubuntu | openjdk-7-jre-zero (7u79-2.5.6-0ubuntu1.15.04.1) @ vivid | 2026-11-01 | ubuntu |
| redhat | java-1.6.0-openjdk-1:1.6.0.36-1.13.8.1.el7_1 | 2015-07-30 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.7.0-oracle-1:1.7.0.85-1jpp.2.el7_1 | 2015-07-17 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.8.0-oracle-1:1.8.0.51-1jpp.2.el7_1 | 2015-07-17 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.6.0-sun-1:1.6.0.101-1jpp.1.el7_1 | 2015-07-17 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.7.0-openjdk-1:1.7.0.85-2.6.1.2.ael7b_1 | 2015-07-15 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.7.0-openjdk-1:1.7.0.85-2.6.1.3.el5_11 | 2015-07-15 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.8.0-openjdk-1:1.8.0.51-1.b16.ael7b_1 | 2015-07-15 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.6.0-ibm-1:1.6.0.16.4-1jpp.1.el6_6 | 2015-06-11 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.5.0-ibm-1:1.5.0.16.10-1jpp.1.el6_6 | 2015-05-20 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.7.1-ibm-1:1.7.1.3.0-1jpp.2.ael7b_1 | 2015-05-20 | redhat |
| redhat | java-1.7.0-ibm-1:1.7.0.9.0-1jpp.1.el5 | 2015-05-13 | redhat |
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
(4 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:7(2)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| openjdk-6 | 6b27-1.12.5-1 ... 6b36-1.13.8-1~deb6u1 (32 versions) |
| — |
| openjdk-7 | 7u13-2.3.6-1 ... 7u9-2.3.5~pre1-1 (66 versions) |
| — |
Debian:6.0(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| openjdk-6 | 6b18-1.8.10-0+squeeze1 ... 6b35-1.13.7-1~deb7u1 (102 versions) |
| — |
Debian:8(1)
| Package | Vulnerable range | Fix by version range | Dependents |
|---|---|---|---|
| openjdk-7 | 7u75-2.5.4-2 ... 7u79-2.5.6-1~deb7u1 (6 versions) |
| — |
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Additional Vendor Advisories
(3)
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.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 21× in last 7d / 71× 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 99 of 169 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. 1 repeat row among the latest 100 is merged into the row it repeats. The 70 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.
- 2026-11-01 12:08 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-11-01 12:08 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-11-01 12:08 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub severity MODERATE · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-31 10:28 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-31 10:28 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-31 10:28 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-30 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-30 08:49 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-30 08:49 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-30 08:49 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-29 07:11 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-29 07:11 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-29 07:11 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-28 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-28 05:31 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-28 05:31 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-28 05:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-27 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-27 03:53 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-27 03:53 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-27 03:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-25 21:59 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-25 21:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-25 19:55 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-25 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
Show 74 moreShow fewer
- 2026-10-24 20:18 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-24 20:18 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-24 20:18 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-23 18:39 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-23 18:39 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-23 18:39 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-22 16:56 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-22 16:56 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-22 16:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-21 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-21 15:16 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-21 15:16 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-21 15:16 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-20 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-20 13:37 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-20 13:37 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-20 13:37 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-19 11:56 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-19 11:56 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-19 11:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-18 10:02 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-18 10:02 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-18 10:01 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-17 08:22 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-17 08:22 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-17 08:22 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-16 06:43 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 06:43 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-16 06:43 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-15 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-15 05:03 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-15 05:03 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-15 05:02 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-14 16:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-14 00:50 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-14 00:50 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-14 00:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-13 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-12 20:54 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-12 20:54 UTCVendor advisory
- 2026-10-12 20:54 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jcj6-c96p-jcmm · GitHub CVSS 10.0
- 2026-10-12 01:16 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-10 19:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-07 23:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-06 15:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-10-03 14:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-30 14:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-30 09:03 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-09-27 13:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-18 19:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-17 19:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-12 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-11 09:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-10 09:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-06 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-05 15:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-04 13:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-09-02 14:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-30 19:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-26 14:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-21 23:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-19 16:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-16 02:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-15 01:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-12 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-09 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-07 16:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-08-05 19:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-30 16:23 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-28 15:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-24 14:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 74% · 99th percentile
- 2026-07-23 01:17 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-23 00:19 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-07-22 21:58 UTCEG score recompute
Related CVEs(same product + same vendor + same CWE)
Same product
10 shownDebian:7:openjdk-6
- CVE-2016-0494EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
- CVE-2016-0483EG 10.0EPSS p97HIGH
- CVE-2015-4883EG 10.0EPSS p93HIGH
- CVE-2015-4881EG 10.0EPSS p93HIGH
- CVE-2015-4860EG 10.0EPSS p93HIGH
- CVE-2015-4844EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
- CVE-2015-4843EG 10.0EPSS p95HIGH
- CVE-2015-4835EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
- CVE-2015-4805EG 10.0EPSS p93HIGH
- CVE-2015-4760EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
Same vendor
10 shownredhat:RHSA-2015:1228
- CVE-2015-4760EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
- CVE-2015-4733EG 10.0EPSS p93HIGH
- CVE-2015-4732EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
- CVE-2015-4731EG 10.0EPSS p93HIGH
- CVE-2015-2628EG 10.0EPSS p94HIGH
- CVE-2015-2590EG 9.8 KEVEPSS p98CRITICAL
- CVE-2015-4000NVD 3.7EG 9.0EPSS p100CRITICAL
- CVE-2015-4748EG 7.6EPSS p99HIGH
- CVE-2015-2632EG 5.0EPSS p91MEDIUM
- CVE-2015-2621EG 5.0EPSS p90MEDIUM
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2015-2808?
When was CVE-2015-2808 made public?
Is CVE-2015-2808 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2015-2808?
How do I remediate CVE-2015-2808?
Dependency Blast Radius
See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2015-2808
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2015-2808?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.