Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)
enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,
a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and
also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension.
Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of
an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.
CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests
that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration
is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or
signed by any convenient CA).
When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the
"signature_algorithms_cert" extension is handled reliably even without the
fix, and peer clients or servers that don't support raw public keys may be
able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding
certificate or its public key.
Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate
need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.
FIPS impact: no
No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation
is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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