Vendor
33 published CVES affecting crypto, from public sources (CVE.org, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS, OSV).
Newest publication first · page 1 of 2
On most platforms, Go uses the given system root certificates. However, in some narrower cases, the system trust stores may not be updated without further action. To defend against the narrower set of cases that may remain affected, a denylist was added in crypto/x509 to return a...
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory ampli...
Handshake messages, such as KeyUpdate, are always considered as state-advancing, regardless of whether a handshake has been completed or not. As a result, a malicious client can keep sending KeyUpdate messages to force the server to keep performing key derivation operations indef...
Handshakes which used Encrypted Client Hello could be de-anonymized by a passive network observer due to a disclosure of pre-shared key identities in the unencrypted client hello.
(*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, ".") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratic...
Validating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root C...
During chain building, the amount of work that is done is not correctly limited when a large number of intermediate certificates are passed in VerifyOptions.Intermediates, which can lead to a denial of service. This affects both direct users of crypto/x509 and users of crypto/tls...
If one side of the TLS connection sends multiple key update messages post-handshake in a single record, the connection can deadlock, causing uncontrolled consumption of resources. This can lead to a denial of service. This only affects TLS 1.3.
When verifying a certificate chain containing excluded DNS constraints, these constraints are not correctly applied to wildcard DNS SANs which use a different case than the constraint. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in th...
Certificate verification can panic when a certificate in the chain has an empty DNS name and another certificate in the chain has excluded name constraints. This can crash programs that are either directly verifying X.509 certificate chains, or those that use TLS.
When verifying a certificate chain which contains a certificate containing multiple email address constraints which share common local portions but different domain portions, these constraints will not be properly applied, and only the last constraint will be considered.
During session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the resumed handshake, the resumed handshake may succeed when it should have failed. This may happen when a user calls Config.Clone and...
During the TLS 1.3 handshake if multiple messages are sent in records that span encryption level boundaries (for instance the Client Hello and Encrypted Extensions messages), the subsequent messages may be processed before the encryption level changes. This can cause some minor i...
An excluded subdomain constraint in a certificate chain does not restrict the usage of wildcard SANs in the leaf certificate. For example a constraint that excludes the subdomain test.example.com does not prevent a leaf certificate from claiming the SAN *.example.com.
Within HostnameError.Error(), when constructing an error string, there is no limit to the number of hosts that will be printed out. Furthermore, the error string is constructed by repeated string concatenation, leading to quadratic runtime. Therefore, a certificate provided by a...
Validating certificate chains which contain DSA public keys can cause programs to panic, due to a interface cast that assumes they implement the Equal method. This affects programs which validate arbitrary certificate chains.
When Conn.Handshake fails during ALPN negotiation the error contains attacker controlled information (the ALPN protocols sent by the client) which is not escaped.
Due to the design of the name constraint checking algorithm, the processing time of some inputs scale non-linearly with respect to the size of the certificate. This affects programs which validate arbitrary certificate chains.
Calling Verify with a VerifyOptions.KeyUsages that contains ExtKeyUsageAny unintentionally disabledpolicy validation. This only affected certificate chains which contain policy graphs, which are rather uncommon.
Due to the usage of a variable time instruction in the assembly implementation of an internal function, a small number of bits of secret scalars are leaked on the ppc64le architecture. Due to the way this function is used, we do not believe this leakage is enough to allow recover...
Using ParsePKCS1PrivateKey to parse a RSA key that is missing the CRT values would panic when verifying that the key is well formed.
A certificate with a URI which has a IPv6 address with a zone ID may incorrectly satisfy a URI name constraint that applies to the certificate chain. Certificates containing URIs are not permitted in the web PKI, so this only affects users of private PKIs which make use of URIs.
Verifying a certificate chain which contains a certificate with an unknown public key algorithm will cause Certificate.Verify to panic. This affects all crypto/tls clients, and servers that set Config.ClientAuth to VerifyClientCertIfGiven or RequireAndVerifyClientCert. The defaul...
Before Go 1.20, the RSA based TLS key exchanges used the math/big library, which is not constant time. RSA blinding was applied to prevent timing attacks, but analysis shows this may not have been fully effective. In particular it appears as if the removal of PKCS#1 padding may l...
QUIC connections do not set an upper bound on the amount of data buffered when reading post-handshake messages, allowing a malicious QUIC connection to cause unbounded memory growth. With fix, connections now consistently reject messages larger than 65KiB in size.
Sources: CVE.org, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS, OSV and public exploit-reference metadata. Product matching comes from the published CVE records. A proof-of-concept means public code exists; it is not evidence of exploitation.