Issue summary: Setting an AES-GCM-SIV IV shorter than the expected nonce
length via EVP_CipherInit_ex() may trigger a heap out-of-bounds read.
Supplying a longer IV is silently truncated instead of rejected.
Impact summary: An application passing a caller-supplied IV of the wrong
length may crash or read beyond its buffer. Because trailing IV bytes are
ignored, an attacker who knows one message and tag may forge messages under a
different IV.
CWE: CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
Description: AES-GCM-SIV copies the caller-supplied IV or nonce into its
internal state using a copy whose length is taken from the expected nonce size
rather than from the length the caller actually provided. When the caller
passes a shorter IV, the copy reads past the end of the caller's buffer;
AddressSanitizer confirms a heap out-of-bounds read reached through
EVP_CipherInit_ex() into ossl_aes_gcm_siv_init(). When the caller passes a
longer IV, the implementation silently discards the trailing bytes instead of
rejecting the length.
The truncation breaks the binding between the IV and the computed
authentication tag. An attacker who has observed a message and its tag under
one IV can produce a message and tag that verify under a different IV whose
first bytes match, since the surplus bytes never influence the computation.
The message itself is unchanged, so this is a failure of IV commitment rather
than a classic existential forgery.
Only applications that call EVP_CipherInit_ex() (or the equivalent provider
cipher initialization) with an IV length other than the standard 12 bytes for
AES-GCM-SIV are affected. The severity is limited because the out-of-bounds
read is small and attacker-controlled only in length, and the forgery requires
an unusual IV length choice by the application.
FIPS impact: no
The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue, as AES-GCM-SIV is not an
approved algorithm.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the BOD 26-04 block below.
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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