LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2024-6119: Possible denial of service in X.509 name checks

Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process. Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of service. Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when comparing the expected name with an `otherName` subject alternative name of an X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the application program. Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address. TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity of the issue is Moderate. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.

HighCVSS 7.5Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysismoderate

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

CVE-2024-6119 is an OpenSSL certificate-name-checking bug that can crash an application during certificate validation. The main business risk is denial of service in software that validates TLS peer names, such as clients checking server certificates. OpenSSL says TLS servers are generally not affected because they rarely perform this specific name check.

Executive priority

Treat this as a targeted availability issue, not a broad remote system compromise. Patch in the next security maintenance window, faster for business-critical clients or infrastructure that connects to untrusted TLS endpoints. Confirm vendor-managed appliances because bundled OpenSSL may lag behind system package updates.

Technical view

When OpenSSL compares an expected DNS name, email address, or IP address with an X.509 otherName subject alternative name, affected applications may read an invalid memory address and terminate. Basic certificate chain validation is not affected. OpenSSL states FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1, and 3.0 are not affected.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely in applications using OpenSSL 3.3.0, 3.2.0, 3.1.0, or 3.0.0 code paths that perform certificate name checks. TLS clients, outbound service connectors, proxies, monitoring tools, and mail or API clients deserve review. TLS servers are generally lower exposure unless they check client certificate names against expected identifiers.

Exploitation context

The provided sources do not show known active exploitation, and the CVE is not listed as KEV. A malicious or malformed certificate containing an otherName SAN could trigger application termination when a vulnerable application performs name matching. Do not treat this as a confidentiality-impact issue based on the advisory; the described impact is denial of service.

Researcher notes

The vulnerable condition is narrow: certificate name checking against otherName SANs, not ordinary chain validation. The advisory explicitly lowers typical TLS server exposure. The supplied CVSS vector appears inconsistent with the text because it lists confidentiality impact while the advisory describes abnormal termination and denial of service.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade OpenSSL 3.3 deployments to 3.3.2 or later vendor-provided builds.
  • Upgrade OpenSSL 3.2 deployments to 3.2.3 or later vendor-provided builds.
  • Upgrade OpenSSL 3.1 deployments to 3.1.7 or later vendor-provided builds.
  • Upgrade OpenSSL 3.0 deployments to 3.0.15 or later vendor-provided builds.
  • Check downstream vendor advisories for appliances, operating systems, and embedded products.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory systems and applications linked against OpenSSL 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3.
  • Prioritize applications that validate server certificates against DNS names, email addresses, or IP addresses.
  • Confirm patched OpenSSL package or library versions are actually loaded by running applications.
  • Review vendor notices for FreeBSD, NetApp, Siemens, and other bundled OpenSSL dependencies.
  • Monitor crash telemetry for certificate-validation failures in exposed client workflows.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
12

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-843: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2024-6119 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
7.5 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
3Timeline events
3ADP providers
11Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: yesTechnical Impact: partial

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
7.5CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N3.93.6CISA-ADP

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

7.5High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2024-6119Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  3. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CVECVE Program Container
CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
cvssV3_1other:ssvc
siemens-SADPADP container

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
OpenSSLOpenSSL3.3.0, 3.2.0, 3.1.0, 3.0.0unaffected
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-843 · source CWE mapping

Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.