There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 before 1.0.2k and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d. No EC algorithms are affected. 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 very significant and likely only accessible to a limited number of attackers. An attacker would additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can occur by default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites. Note: This issue is very similar to CVE-2015-3193 but must be treated as a separate problem.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2a | 1.0.2a.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2e | 1.0.2e.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2b | 1.0.2b.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0c | 1.1.0c.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2h | 1.0.2h.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2c | 1.0.2c.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0b | 1.1.0b.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2-beta3 | 1.0.2-beta3.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2-beta1 | 1.0.2-beta1.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0a | 1.1.0a.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2 | 1.0.2.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2f | 1.0.2f.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2-beta2 | 1.0.2-beta2.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2i | 1.0.2i.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2d | 1.0.2d.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 4.0.0 | 4.1.2.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 6.0.0 | 6.8.1.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 5.0.0 | 5.12.0.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 7.0.0 | 7.5.0 |
| nodejs / node.js | 6.9.0 | 6.9.5 |
| nodejs / node.js | 4.2.0 | 4.7.3 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.