Issue summary: Writing large, newline-free data into a BIO chain using the
line-buffering filter where the next BIO performs short writes can trigger
a heap-based out-of-bounds write.
Impact summary: This out-of-bounds write can cause memory corruption which
typically results in a crash, leading to Denial of Service for an application.
The line-buffering BIO filter (BIO_f_linebuffer) is not used by default in
TLS/SSL data paths. In OpenSSL command-line applications, it is typically
only pushed onto stdout/stderr on VMS systems. Third-party applications that
explicitly use this filter with a BIO chain that can short-write and that
write large, newline-free data influenced by an attacker would be affected.
However, the circumstances where this could happen are unlikely to be under
attacker control, and BIO_f_linebuffer is unlikely to be handling non-curated
data controlled by an attacker. For that reason the issue was assessed as
Low severity.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue,
as the BIO implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are vulnerable to this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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