CVE-2009-3555

CRITICALNVD 9.89.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 9.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: CRITICAL) published 2022-05-02. NVD baseline CVSS 9.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Weaponized

Also known asEUVD-2022-3720 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

9.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • 49 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running an affected version — derived from Shodan data (© Shodan); a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open
  • High exploitation likelihood — EPSS 87%
  • Public exploit code is available (Exploit-DB, marked verified by Exploit-DB, other public proof-of-concept code)
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 87%CVSS: 9.8Exploit: Exploit-DB (verified) · other public PoCExposed services: 49

A fix is available — apply it.

The TLS protocol, and the SSL protocol 3.0 and possibly earlier, as used in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.0, mod_ssl in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.14 and earlier, OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, GnuTLS 2.8.5 and earlier, Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) 3.12.4 and earlier, multiple Cisco products, and other products, does not properly associate renegotiation handshakes with an existing connection, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to insert data into HTTPS sessions, and possibly other types of sessions protected by TLS or SSL, by sending an unauthenticated request that is processed retroactively by a server in a post-renegotiation context, related to a "plaintext injection" attack, aka the "Project Mogul" issue.

Internet exposure · derived from Shodan data

49 internet-facing services (distinct ip:port) on record running a version that maps to CVE-2009-3555, in our KEV-Exposure radar’s Shodan-derived sample.

across 12 hosting countries (Poland, United States, Netherlands, Germany, Japan)top: http_server
See the KEV-Exposure radar →Derived from Shodan data. Shodan data is owned by Shodan, which holds its copyright (© Shodan). EchelonGraph claims no ownership of it or copyright in it. Aggregate, host-redacted.

How it counts: every 12 hours, when Shodan query credits allow, the radar runs one Shodan query per tracked product, reads up to 100 ip:port services per query, and keeps a service when its banner version matches a CISA-KEV or high-EPSS CVE; a service is dropped when neither a search nor a Shodan InternetDB port re-check has refreshed it for 21 days. A re-check that finds the port still listed by Shodan InternetDB refreshes the service without re-reading the banner, so a patched service can stay counted while its port stays open. A count is a banner-version inference over a sample, not an exploit test and not an internet-wide census, and the unit is a service, not a machine: a machine answering on two ports counts twice.

CVSS v3
9.8
EG Score
9.8CRITICALmedium confidence
EG Risk
94
EG Risk 94/100

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)
Severity98% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 9.8 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation87% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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 at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
87%
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 (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
87% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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 low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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

November 9, 2009

Last Modified

May 27, 2026

Advisory Details (1)

Auto-updated Oct 8, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

G-SEC - Blog: TLS / SSLv3 renegotiation vulnerability explained (Update #2)(

http://blog.g-sec.lu/2009/11/tls-sslv3-renegotiation-vulnerability.html

Patch Availability(33)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntuapache2.2-common (2.2.12-1ubuntu2.1) @ karmic2026-11-11ubuntu
ubuntuapache2.2-common (2.2.11-2ubuntu2.7) @ jaunty2026-11-11ubuntu
ubuntulibnss3-1d (3.12.6-0ubuntu0.8.04.1) @ hardy2026-11-11ubuntu
redhatxstream-0:1.3.1-10.el72015-08-12redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-ibm-1:1.6.0.9.1-1jpp.1.el52011-06-16redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-ibm-1:1.6.0.9.0-1jpp.3.el52010-12-15redhat
redhatjava-1.4.2-ibm-sap-0:1.4.2.13.6.sap-1jpp.1.el52010-12-15redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-openjdk-1:1.6.0.0-1.31.b17.el6_02010-11-10redhat
redhatjava-1.5.0-ibm-1:1.5.0.12.2-1jpp.1.el52010-10-27redhat
redhatjava-1.4.2-ibm-0:1.4.2.13.6-1jpp.2.el52010-10-20redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-sun-1:1.6.0.22-1jpp.1.el52010-10-14redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-openjdk-1:1.6.0.0-1.16.b17.el52010-10-13redhat
redhatrhev-hypervisor-0:5.4-2.1.12.1.el5_4rhev2_12010-05-25redhat
redhatjava-1.4.2-ibm-0:1.4.2.13.4.sap-1jpp.1.el52010-05-12redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-sun-1:1.6.0.19-1jpp.1.el52010-04-01redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-openjdk-1:1.6.0.0-1.11.b16.el52010-04-01redhat
redhatjava-1.5.0-sun-0:1.5.0.22-1jpp.3.el52010-04-01redhat
redhatopenssl097a-0:0.9.7a-9.el5_4.22010-03-25redhat
redhatopenssl-0:0.9.7a-43.17.el4_8.52010-03-25redhat
redhatgnutls-0:1.4.1-3.el5_4.82010-03-25redhat
redhatgnutls-0:1.0.20-4.el4_8.72010-03-25redhat
redhatnss-0:3.12.6-1.el5_42010-03-25redhat
redhatopenssl-0:0.9.8e-12.el5_4.62010-03-25redhat
redhatjava-1.4.2-ibm-0:1.4.2.13.4-1jpp.1.el52010-03-17redhat
redhatjava-1.5.0-ibm-1:1.5.0.11.1-1jpp.3.el52010-03-03redhat
redhattomcat-native-0:1.1.19-2.0.1.ep5.el52010-02-23redhat
redhathttpd-0:2.2.10-11.ep5.el52010-01-06redhat
redhatjava-1.6.0-ibm-1:1.6.0.7-1jpp.2.el52009-12-23redhat
redhathttpd-0:2.2.3-31.el5_4.22009-11-11redhat
redhathttpd-0:2.0.52-41.ent.62009-11-11redhat
mavenorg.apache.tomcat:tomcat @ 6.0.32 (fixes >= 6.0.0, < 6.0.32)—ghsa
mavenorg.apache.tomcat:tomcat @ 5.5.33 (fixes >= 5.0.0, < 5.5.33)—ghsa
mavenorg.apache.tomcat:tomcat @ 7.0.10 (fixes >= 7.0.0, < 7.0.10)—ghsa

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

(36 across 10 ecosystems)
Debian:11(7)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
apache2—
  • every version up to 2.2.14-2: fixed in 2.2.14-2
—
lighttpd—
  • every version up to 1.4.30-1: fixed in 1.4.30-1
—
nginx—
  • every version up to 0.7.64-1: fixed in 0.7.64-1
—
nss—
  • every version up to 3.12.6-1: fixed in 3.12.6-1
—
openssl—
  • every version up to 0.9.8k-6: fixed in 0.9.8k-6
—
pound—
  • every version up to 2.6-6.1: fixed in 2.6-6.1
—
tomcat-native—
  • every version up to 1.1.18-1: fixed in 1.1.18-1
—
Debian:13(7)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
apache2—
  • every version up to 2.2.14-2: fixed in 2.2.14-2
—
lighttpd—
  • every version up to 1.4.30-1: fixed in 1.4.30-1
—
nginx—
  • every version up to 0.7.64-1: fixed in 0.7.64-1
—
nss—
  • every version up to 3.12.6-1: fixed in 3.12.6-1
—
openssl—
  • every version up to 0.9.8k-6: fixed in 0.9.8k-6
—
pound—
  • every version up to 2.6-6.1: fixed in 2.6-6.1
—
tomcat-native—
  • every version up to 1.1.18-1: fixed in 1.1.18-1
—
Debian:14(7)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
apache2—
  • every version up to 2.2.14-2: fixed in 2.2.14-2
—
lighttpd—
  • every version up to 1.4.30-1: fixed in 1.4.30-1
—
nginx—
  • every version up to 0.7.64-1: fixed in 0.7.64-1
—
nss—
  • every version up to 3.12.6-1: fixed in 3.12.6-1
—
openssl—
  • every version up to 0.9.8k-6: fixed in 0.9.8k-6
—
pound—
  • every version up to 2.6-6.1: fixed in 2.6-6.1
—
tomcat-native—
  • every version up to 1.1.18-1: fixed in 1.1.18-1
—
Debian:12(6)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
apache2—
  • every version up to 2.2.14-2: fixed in 2.2.14-2
—
lighttpd—
  • every version up to 1.4.30-1: fixed in 1.4.30-1
—
nginx—
  • every version up to 0.7.64-1: fixed in 0.7.64-1
—
nss—
  • every version up to 3.12.6-1: fixed in 3.12.6-1
—
openssl—
  • every version up to 0.9.8k-6: fixed in 0.9.8k-6
—
tomcat-native—
  • every version up to 1.1.18-1: fixed in 1.1.18-1
—
Debian:5.0(3)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
apache22.2.9-10+lenny2, 2.2.9-10+lenny3, 2.2.9-10+lenny4, 2.2.9-10+lenny5
  • every version up to 2.2.9-10+lenny6: fixed in 2.2.9-10+lenny6
—
nss3.12.0-5 ... 3.12.3.1-0lenny2 (8 versions)
  • every version up to 3.12.3.1-0lenny3: fixed in 3.12.3.1-0lenny3
—
openssl0.9.8g-15 ... 0.9.8g-15+lenny9 (8 versions)
  • every version up to 0.9.8g-15+lenny11: fixed in 0.9.8g-15+lenny11
—
Debian:6.0(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
lighttpd1.4.28-2, 1.4.28-2+squeeze1, 1.4.28-2+squeeze1.1
  • every version up to 1.4.28-2+squeeze1.2: fixed in 1.4.28-2+squeeze1.2
—
pound2.5-1, 2.5-1.1, 2.6-1
  • every version up to 2.6-1+deb6u1: fixed in 2.6-1+deb6u1
—
Debian:4.0(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
apache22.2.3-4 ... 2.2.3-4+etch9 (10 versions)
  • every version up to 2.2.3-4+etch11: fixed in 2.2.3-4+etch11
—
Debian:7(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
pound2.6-2
  • every version up to 2.6-2+deb7u1: fixed in 2.6-2+deb7u1
—
Debian:8(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
pound2.6-6
  • every version up to 2.6-6+deb8u1: fixed in 2.6-6+deb8u1
—
Maven(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
org.apache.tomcat:tomcat—
  • 7.0.0 up to 7.0.10: fixed in 7.0.10
  • 6.0.0 up to 6.0.32: fixed in 6.0.32
  • 5.0.0 up to 5.5.33: fixed in 5.5.33
—

Weakness Classification(2)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(8)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 17× in last 7d / 51× 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 its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). 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). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 174 rows 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. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 74 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-12 20:15 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  2. 2026-11-12 20:15 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-11-12 20:15 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  4. 2026-11-12 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  5. 2026-11-11 19:46 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  6. 2026-11-11 19:46 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-11-11 19:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  8. 2026-11-11 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  9. 2026-11-10 19:17 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  10. 2026-11-10 19:17 UTCVendor advisory
  11. 2026-11-10 19:17 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  12. 2026-11-09 18:42 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  13. 2026-11-09 18:42 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-11-09 18:42 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  15. 2026-11-08 18:14 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  16. 2026-11-08 18:14 UTCVendor advisory
  17. 2026-11-08 18:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  18. 2026-11-07 17:45 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  19. 2026-11-07 17:45 UTCVendor advisory
  20. 2026-11-07 17:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  21. 2026-11-06 17:16 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  22. 2026-11-06 17:16 UTCVendor advisory
  23. 2026-11-06 17:16 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  24. 2026-11-06 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  25. 2026-11-05 16:48 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-11-05 16:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  2. 2026-11-04 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  3. 2026-11-04 16:19 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  4. 2026-11-04 16:19 UTCVendor advisory
  5. 2026-11-04 16:19 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  6. 2026-11-03 15:50 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  7. 2026-11-03 15:50 UTCVendor advisory
  8. 2026-11-03 15:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  9. 2026-11-02 15:22 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  10. 2026-11-02 15:22 UTCVendor advisory
  11. 2026-11-02 15:21 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  12. 2026-11-01 14:55 UTCOSV refresh
  13. 2026-11-01 14:53 UTCVendor advisory
  14. 2026-11-01 14:53 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  15. 2026-11-01 08:52 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-f7w7-6pjc-wwm6 · GitHub severity CRITICAL · GitHub CVSS 9.8
  16. 2026-11-01 08:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  17. 2026-10-31 14:25 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  18. 2026-10-31 14:25 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-30 13:56 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  20. 2026-10-30 13:56 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-29 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  22. 2026-10-29 13:27 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  23. 2026-10-29 13:27 UTCVendor advisory
  24. 2026-10-28 12:57 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  25. 2026-10-28 12:57 UTCVendor advisory
  26. 2026-10-27 12:28 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  27. 2026-10-27 12:28 UTCVendor advisory
  28. 2026-10-26 12:00 UTCVendor advisory
  29. 2026-10-25 20:22 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  30. 2026-10-25 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  31. 2026-10-25 11:17 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  32. 2026-10-25 11:17 UTCVendor advisory
  33. 2026-10-24 10:48 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  34. 2026-10-24 10:48 UTCVendor advisory
  35. 2026-10-23 10:19 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  36. 2026-10-23 10:19 UTCVendor advisory
  37. 2026-10-22 09:48 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  38. 2026-10-22 09:48 UTCVendor advisory
  39. 2026-10-21 16:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  40. 2026-10-21 09:17 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  41. 2026-10-21 09:17 UTCVendor advisory
  42. 2026-10-20 08:48 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  43. 2026-10-20 08:48 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-10-19 08:18 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  45. 2026-10-19 08:18 UTCVendor advisory
  46. 2026-10-18 07:49 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  47. 2026-10-18 07:49 UTCVendor advisory
  48. 2026-10-17 07:19 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  49. 2026-10-17 07:19 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-10-16 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  51. 2026-10-16 06:49 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  52. 2026-10-16 06:49 UTCVendor advisory
  53. 2026-10-15 05:32 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  54. 2026-10-15 05:32 UTCVendor advisory
  55. 2026-10-14 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  56. 2026-10-14 01:10 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  57. 2026-10-14 01:10 UTCVendor advisory
  58. 2026-10-12 21:18 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  59. 2026-10-12 21:18 UTCVendor advisory
  60. 2026-10-12 01:52 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  61. 2026-10-09 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  62. 2026-10-06 15:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  63. 2026-10-03 03:39 UTCOSV refresh
  64. 2026-09-29 08:00 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
  65. 2026-09-24 13:57 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  66. 2026-09-14 01:19 UTCOSV refresh
  67. 2026-09-12 14:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  68. 2026-09-10 09:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  69. 2026-09-06 13:41 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  70. 2026-09-05 15:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  71. 2026-09-04 13:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  72. 2026-08-28 21:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  73. 2026-08-27 14:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile
  74. 2026-08-26 02:39 UTCOSV refresh
  75. 2026-08-19 16:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 87% · 99th percentile

Publicly available exploits

(3 references)

Public exploit code is referenced for this CVE (2 Exploit-DB entries, 1 GitHub PoC). Defenders should treat patch urgency accordingly.

  • Exploit-DBEDB-10579✓ verified
    Published Dec 21, 2009

    TLS - Renegotiation

    Open source ↗
  • Exploit-DBEDB-10071✓ verified
    Published Nov 10, 2009

    Mozilla NSS - NULL Character CA SSL Certificate Validation Security Bypass

    Open source ↗
  • GitHub PoCjohnwchadwick/cve-2009-3555-test-server
    Published Mar 30, 2022

    A TLS server using a vendored fork of the Go TLS stack that has renegotation indication extension forcibly disabled.

    Open source ↗

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2009-3555?
CVE-2009-3555 is a critical-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on November 9, 2009. The TLS protocol, and the SSL protocol 3.0 and possibly earlier, as used in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.0, mod_ssl in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.14 and earlier, OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, GnuTLS 2.8.5 and earlier, Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) 3.12.4 and earlier, multiple…
When was CVE-2009-3555 made public?
CVE-2009-3555 was made public on November 4, 2009: that is the date its CVE record's CNA, Red Hat, Inc., gives for when the vulnerability was made public. The CVE record itself was published on November 9, 2009. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of May 27, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2009-3555 actively exploited?
CVE-2009-3555 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. EchelonGraph's EG-KEV model places it in Tier 2 (Weaponized), which is not evidence of exploitation: Exploit-DB marks a public exploit for it as verified, and CISA's SSVC data says a public PoC exists and its EPSS is 50% or more. EchelonGraph does not test whether exploit code works. FIRST EPSS estimates a 87% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (99th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2009-3555?
CVE-2009-3555 has a CVSS v3 base score of 9.8 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2009-3555?
A fix for CVE-2009-3555 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2009-3555 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2009-3555

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2009-3555?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.