CVE-2024-12797

RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don't abort as expected

MEDIUM
6.3
CVSS Score
Published: February 11, 2025 at 03:59 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 07:00 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorOpenSSL

Using OpenSSL by OpenSSL?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect OpenSSL - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM6.3
Exploit prediction
EPSS 3%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode is set. Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not detected by clients. RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys, by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER. Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2. The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

3.2.0 ≤ v < 3.2.43.3.0 ≤ v < 3.3.33.4.0 ≤ v < 3.4.13.2.03.3.03.4.0
Affected range stops below 3.2.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.3.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 3.4.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

6.3MEDIUMCISA-ADP
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
REQUIRED
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
LOW
Integrity
LOW
Availability
LOW
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusDEFERRED
CWE
CWE-392

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card