Issue summary: The DTLS retransmission logic does not correctly handle
a handshake message write that is suspended part-way through.
The retransmitted message can be read past the message buffer and
the retransmission overwrites the internal state the suspended write
needs to resume correctly.
Impact summary: The retransmitted message can disclose a heap memory
to the peer as plaintext handshake data or cause a crash and a Denial
of Service when the read reaches an unmapped memory region.
CWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
Description: DTLS handshake messages can be written out in multiple
fragments, and a write can suspend mid-message (returning WANT_WRITE)
if the underlying transport temporarily cannot accept more data. While
such a write is suspended, the DTLS retransmission timer may
independently fire and ask the retransmission logic to resend an
earlier, already-acknowledged-as-sent message from its retransmit
queue.
The retransmission logic reused the same internal buffer and position
tracking as the message that was still being written, without
resetting the position back to the start of the message being
retransmitted. As a result the retransmission was read starting from
wherever the suspended write had left off, producing a mislabelled
message whose body was leftover bytes from the other, larger message
still in flight - content that was never meant to be sent at that
point, and which could run past the end of the allocated buffer.
Separately, even when the retransmission is positioned correctly,
allowing it to run to completion while another write is suspended
overwrites the same shared bookkeeping that the suspended write
depends on to resume. When the application later resumes the
suspended write (via a subsequent SSL_read(), SSL_write(),
SSL_accept(), or SSL_connect() call), it finds that bookkeeping in a
state inconsistent with the message and aborts the process in
a debugging build.
The fix resets the retransmission's read position to the start of the
message before resending, and skips retransmission entirely whenever a
handshake write is still suspended, deferring to the next call that
resumes it instead.
FIPS impact: no
The affected code is outside the FIPS module boundary.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.2 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.9% 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 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.
The score's inputs: 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