There is an overflow bug in the AVX2 Montgomery multiplication procedure used in exponentiation with 1024-bit moduli. 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 DH1024 are considered just feasible, 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 significant. However, for an attack on TLS to be meaningful, the server would have to share the DH1024 private key among multiple clients, which is no longer an option since CVE-2016-0701. This only affects processors that support the AVX2 but not ADX extensions like Intel Haswell (4th generation). Note: The impact from this issue is similar to CVE-2017-3736, CVE-2017-3732 and CVE-2015-3193. OpenSSL version 1.0.2-1.0.2m and 1.1.0-1.1.0g are affected. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2n. Due to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing a new release of OpenSSL 1.1.0 at this time. The fix will be included in OpenSSL 1.1.0h when it becomes available. The fix is also available in commit e502cc86d in the OpenSSL git repository.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2a | 1.0.2a.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2e | 1.0.2e.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2j | 1.0.2j.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2b | 1.0.2b.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2g | 1.0.2g.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2h | 1.0.2h.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2c | 1.0.2c.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 | 1.0.2 | 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 |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2k | 1.0.2k.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2l | 1.0.2l.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.0.2m | 1.0.2m.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0e | 1.1.0e.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0f | 1.1.0f.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0c | 1.1.0c.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0b | 1.1.0b.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0d | 1.1.0d.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0 | 1.1.0.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0a | 1.1.0a.x |
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.0g | 1.1.0g.x |
| debian / debian_linux | 8.0 | 8.0.x |
| debian / debian_linux | 9.0 | 9.0.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 4.0.0 | 4.1.2.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 6.0.0 | 6.8.1.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 8.0.0 | 8.8.1.x |
| nodejs / node.js | 9.0.0 | 9.2.1 |
| nodejs / node.js | 8.9.0 | 8.9.3 |
| nodejs / node.js | 6.9.0 | 6.12.2 |
| nodejs / node.js | 4.2.0 | 4.8.7 |
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.