Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly
sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the
QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the
connection.
Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can
cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service
through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent
QUIC connections.
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,
there is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge
that ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL
implementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.
In and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and
then drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the
OpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),
and then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like
legitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth
on the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.
The fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only
packet in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing
the ACK-only packet metadata itself.
FIPS impact: no
The OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is
outside the 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