CVE-2021-4160
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
BN_mod_exp may produce incorrect results on MIPS
rank 25 = 1 + 15 + 0 + 9 + 0
rank@v1 · scheduled
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.03772 · without this subject the record ranks 24
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 5.9, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 10
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 25
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
15 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 16
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 25
$115,000 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.6121449559255632 exposure x 0.03772 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Running OpenSSL? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
Show all 15 published ranges
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
There is a carry propagation bug in the MIPS32 and MIPS64 squaring procedure. Many EC algorithms are affected, including some of the TLS 1.3 default curves. Impact was not analyzed in detail, because the pre-requisites for attack are considered unlikely and include reusing private keys. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack would be significant. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
However, for an attack on TLS to be meaningful, the server would have to share the DH private key among multiple clients, which is no longer an option since CVE-2016-0701. This issue affects OpenSSL versions 1.0.2, 1.1.1 and 3.0.0. It was addressed in the releases of 1.1.1m and 3.0.1 on the 15th of December 2021. For the 1.0.2 release it is addressed in git commit 6fc1aaaf3 that is available to premium support customers only. It will be made available in 1.0.2zc when it is released. The issue only affects OpenSSL on MIPS platforms. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.1 (Affected 3.0.0). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1m (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1l). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2zc-dev (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2zb).
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 5.9 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- affected versions
- openssl >= 1.0.2 <= 1.0.2zb; openssl >= 1.1.1 < 1.1.1m; openssl 3.0.0; and 12 more, listed in full below
check it yourself openssl.org git.openssl.org git.openssl.org git.openssl.org debian.org oracle.com +4 morereceipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 41 observations
41 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 4 years, 7 months when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2021-4160.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.