FKIE_CVE-2025-27587
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-06-16 22:15 - Updated: 2026-06-17 09:03| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"product": "n/a",
"vendor": "n/a",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "n/a"
}
]
}
],
"source": "cve@mitre.org"
}
],
"cveTags": [
{
"sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
"tags": [
"disputed"
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "OpenSSL 3.0.0 through 3.3.2 on the PowerPC architecture is vulnerable to a Minerva attack, exploitable by measuring the time of signing of random messages using the EVP_DigestSign API, and then using the private key to extract the K value (nonce) from the signatures. Next, based on the bit size of the extracted nonce, one can compare the signing time of full-sized nonces to signatures that used smaller nonces, via statistical tests. There is a side-channel in the P-364 curve that allows private key extraction (also, there is a dependency between the bit size of K and the size of the side channel). NOTE: This CVE is disputed because the OpenSSL security policy explicitly notes that any side channels which require same physical system to be detected are outside of the threat model for the software. The timing signal is so small that it is infeasible to be detected without having the attacking process running on the same physical system."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "OpenSSL 3.0.0 a 3.3.2 en la arquitectura PowerPC es vulnerable a un ataque Minerva. Este ataque se puede explotar midiendo el tiempo de firma de mensajes aleatorios mediante la API EVP_DigestSign y, posteriormente, utilizando la clave privada para extraer el valor K (nonce) de las firmas. A continuaci\u00f3n, bas\u00e1ndose en el tama\u00f1o en bits del nonce extra\u00eddo, se puede comparar el tiempo de firma de nonces de tama\u00f1o completo con el de firmas que utilizan nonces m\u00e1s peque\u00f1os mediante pruebas estad\u00edsticas. Existe un canal lateral en la curva P-364 que permite la extracci\u00f3n de la clave privada (adem\u00e1s, existe una dependencia entre el tama\u00f1o en bits de K y el tama\u00f1o del canal lateral). NOTA: Esta CVE es controvertida porque la pol\u00edtica de seguridad de OpenSSL indica expl\u00edcitamente que cualquier canal lateral que requiera la detecci\u00f3n del mismo sistema f\u00edsico queda fuera del modelo de amenazas del software. La se\u00f1al de tiempo es tan peque\u00f1a que es imposible detectarla sin que el proceso atacante se ejecute en el mismo sistema f\u00edsico."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2025-27587",
"lastModified": "2026-06-17T09:03:50.853",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "HIGH",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 5.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.6,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2025-27587",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-06-26T16:16:27.533510Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2025-06-16T22:15:44.093",
"references": [
{
"source": "cve@mitre.org",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/24253"
},
{
"source": "cve@mitre.org",
"url": "https://minerva.crocs.fi.muni.cz"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-385"
}
],
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
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.