CVE-2023-6937 (GCVE-0-2023-6937)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2024-02-15 17:21 – Updated: 2025-04-24 15:13- CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 | patch |
| https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/ | vendor-advisory |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unknown",
"product": "wolfssl",
"vendor": "wolfssl",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.64",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2023-6937",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-24T15:13:21.405337Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-24T15:13:34.315Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
},
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-08-02T08:42:08.518Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"patch",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"(D)TLS"
],
"product": "wolfSSL",
"repo": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl",
"vendor": "wolfSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.6.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "release bundle"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"user": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"value": "Johannes Wilson from Sectra Communications and Link\u00f6ping University"
}
],
"datePublic": "2023-12-20T00:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
}
],
"value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-272",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-272 Protocol Manipulation"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-02-15T17:21:44.342Z",
"orgId": "50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27",
"shortName": "wolfSSL"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003eThe fix for this issue is located in the following GitHub Pull Request: \u003c/span\u003e\u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003ehttps://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix for this issue is located in the following GitHub Pull Request: https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 .\n\n"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Improper (D)TLS key boundary enforcement",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27",
"assignerShortName": "wolfSSL",
"cveId": "CVE-2023-6937",
"datePublished": "2024-02-15T17:21:44.342Z",
"dateReserved": "2023-12-18T22:03:02.400Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-24T15:13:34.315Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2023-6937",
"date": "2026-11-15",
"epss": "0.00513",
"percentile": "0.44302"
},
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"(D)TLS"
],
"product": "wolfSSL",
"repo": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl",
"vendor": "wolfSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.6.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "release bundle"
}
]
}
],
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com"
},
{
"affectedData": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unknown",
"product": "wolfssl",
"vendor": "wolfssl",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.64",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0"
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "57DCDF61-F982-41D7-83BE-DDAEC85A797A",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.6.6",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "wolfSSL anterior a 5.6.6 no verificaba que los mensajes en un registro (D)TLS no abarquen l\u00edmites clave. Como resultado, fue posible combinar mensajes (D)TLS usando diferentes claves en un registro (D)TLS. El caso m\u00e1s extremo es que, en (D)TLS 1.3, era posible que un registro (D)TLS 1.3 no cifrado del servidor que contuviera primero un mensaje ServerHello y luego el resto del primer vuelo del servidor fuera aceptado por un wolfSSL. cliente. En (D)TLS 1.3, el protocolo de enlace se cifra despu\u00e9s de ServerHello, pero un cliente wolfSSL aceptar\u00eda un vuelo sin cifrar desde el servidor. Esto no compromete la negociaci\u00f3n y autenticaci\u00f3n de claves, por lo que se le asigna una calificaci\u00f3n de gravedad baja."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2023-6937",
"lastModified": "2026-06-17T06:51:43.287",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 1.4,
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"type": "Secondary"
},
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 1.4,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2023-6937",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "yes"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-24T15:13:21.405337Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2024-02-15T18:15:44.890",
"references": [
{
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"tags": [
"Issue Tracking",
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
},
{
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
},
{
"source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"tags": [
"Issue Tracking",
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
},
{
"source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-20"
}
],
"source": "facts@wolfssl.com",
"type": "Secondary"
},
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "NVD-CWE-Other"
}
],
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
]
}
},
"redhat_vex": {
"current_release_date": "2025-05-29T00:36:38+00:00",
"cve": "CVE-2023-6937",
"id": "CVE-2023-6937",
"initial_release_date": "2023-12-20T00:00:00+00:00",
"product_status:known_not_affected": "1",
"source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "Improper (D)TLS key boundary enforcement",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2023/cve-2023-6937.json",
"version": "3"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-08-02T08:42:08.518Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"patch",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
},
{
"affected": [
{
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:wolfssl:wolfssl:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unknown",
"product": "wolfssl",
"vendor": "wolfssl",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.64",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "custom"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2023-6937",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-24T15:13:21.405337Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-07-29T15:39:52.402Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"(D)TLS"
],
"product": "wolfSSL",
"repo": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl",
"vendor": "wolfSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "5.6.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "release bundle"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"user": "00000000-0000-4000-9000-000000000000",
"value": "Johannes Wilson from Sectra Communications and Link\u00f6ping University"
}
],
"datePublic": "2023-12-20T00:00:00.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
}
],
"value": "wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the ServerHello but a wolfSSL client would accept an unencrypted flight from the server. This does not compromise key negotiation and authentication so it is assigned a low severity rating."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-272",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CAPEC-272 Protocol Manipulation"
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-20",
"description": "CWE-20 Improper Input Validation",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-02-15T17:21:44.342Z",
"orgId": "50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27",
"shortName": "wolfSSL"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029"
},
{
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities/"
}
],
"solutions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003eThe fix for this issue is located in the following GitHub Pull Request: \u003c/span\u003e\u003ca target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003ehttps://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003cspan style=\"background-color: transparent;\"\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"
}
],
"value": "The fix for this issue is located in the following GitHub Pull Request: https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/7029 .\n\n"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "EXTERNAL"
},
"title": "Improper (D)TLS key boundary enforcement",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.1.0-dev"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "50d2cd11-d01a-48ed-9441-5bfce9d63b27",
"assignerShortName": "wolfSSL",
"cveId": "CVE-2023-6937",
"datePublished": "2024-02-15T17:21:44.342Z",
"dateReserved": "2023-12-18T22:03:02.400Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-24T15:13:34.315Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
}
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.