vciy

CVE-2024-12797

INDEX BUILT · 2026-09-20

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.

RFC7250 handshakes with unauthenticated servers don't abort as expected

CVE-2024-127973 of 4 sources documented this
1

rank 1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0

rank@v1 · backlog

Someone is already using it

CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS

EPSS 0.02531  ·  without this subject the record ranks 0

What it costs you if it fires

NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own

no CVSS held by anyone  ·  without this subject the record ranks 1

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 1

How much of the world it touches

NVD CPE configurations

0 products in the CPE ranges  ·  without this subject the record ranks 1

Someone else already set the date

CISA KEV remediation due date

no CISA due date  ·  without this subject the record ranks 1

Hindsight · the state

0.02531EPSSNOT IN KEVas of 2026-09-20
Severitynot scored
Harmnot stated
Exploitationnone in held sources
Defensefix version namedreceipt
Movementdoubled within 72hreceipt
PLATEAU10Minimal movement since 2025-02-12, 571 days at 0.03, as of 2026-09-06. arc-rules@v1

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.

Color is a claim, not decoration:the hostile worldthe defenseno signal

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.

What counts as a move

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 affectedMitigated

Choose 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.

ReachNo CVSS vector in held sources, so no reach or impact can be stated.
Weakness classCWE-392 Missing Report of Error Conditionreceipt
Published consequencesCWE-392: Integrity, Other: Varies by Context, Unexpected State[email protected]

CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA

The fix, and how long it's been waiting.

Fixed in3.4.1; 3.3.3; 3.2.4receipt
Patch available sinceNo dated patch-availability record in held sources. The index holds reference URLs without dates and only the current revision of the CVE record, so the day a fix first existed cannot be derived. Only the versions it landed in.

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

Authority who says so

Exploit probability0.02531 · top 16% of all CVEsreceipt
Assigned byopensslreceipt
Recorded changes59 · last 19 Sep 2026derived

Affected & Fixed Versions as published

Affected productOpenSSLreceipt
Fixed in3.4.1; 3.3.3; 3.2.4receipt

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.

Did this affect your environment?Answering needs an account.

What it is stated by the CNA

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. receipt

Read the rest of the CNA's description

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.

NVD's analysis a second authority

weakness
CWE-392
also scored by
6.3 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

check it yourself openssl-library.org github.com github.com github.com receipt

Movement the material steps

12 Feb 20250.00045
17 Mar 20250.00274 · scoring model v2025.03.14
15 Jun 20260.02357 · scoring model v2026.06.15
6 Sep 20260.02531

This score more than doubled inside 72 hours. Both observations are in the full history below.

Show all 59 observations
12 Feb 20250.00045
17 Mar 20250.00274
19 Mar 20250.0248
20 Mar 20250.00274
21 Mar 20250.00117
27 Mar 20250.01077
28 Mar 20250.00117
29 Mar 20250.01077
30 Mar 20250.00117
15 Apr 20250.00159
20 Apr 20250.00183
24 Apr 20250.0013
15 May 20250.00154
18 May 20250.0013
13 Jun 20250.00151
15 Jun 20250.00179
18 Jun 20250.00151
27 Jun 20250.00179
29 Jun 20250.00151
11 Jul 20250.00175
16 Jul 20250.00208
19 Jul 20250.00175
22 Jul 20250.00222
7 Sep 20250.00259
16 Sep 20250.00307
17 Sep 20250.00361
18 Sep 20250.00304
17 Oct 20250.00338
25 Oct 20250.00401
27 Oct 20250.00338
28 Oct 20250.00334
7 Nov 20250.00372
18 Nov 20250.01106
19 Nov 20250.01131
21 Nov 20250.00955
28 Nov 20250.01147
8 Dec 20250.01231
31 Dec 20250.01017
4 Jan 20260.01684
7 Feb 20260.01326
18 Feb 20260.01362
21 Feb 20260.01326
2 Mar 20260.00869
21 Mar 20260.00893
22 Mar 20260.00794
26 Mar 20260.00773
24 Apr 20260.00577
29 Apr 20260.00593
30 Apr 20260.00794
2 May 20260.00722
13 May 20260.00702
22 May 20260.00581
23 May 20260.00801
26 May 20260.00826
5 Jun 20260.00804
15 Jun 20260.02357
10 Jul 20260.02439
14 Aug 20260.02481
6 Sep 20260.02531

59 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

EPSS 0.02531Published2025-02-11Index as of2026-09-06

Exploit probability more than doubled between 2025-03-17 and 2025-03-19 (0.00274 → 0.0248) and the record had been public for 1 year, 6 months when this index was last written.

Published 2025-02-11 receipt · Index as of 2026-09-06 derived

Siblings and hubs

Records related to this one

Browse the index from here

These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2024-12797.

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.

Everything on this page is free. Public data. Withholding it protects nothing.