Vulnerability Database

328,409

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2020-1971

The X.509 GeneralName type is a generic type for representing different types of names. One of those name types is known as EDIPartyName. OpenSSL provides a function GENERAL_NAME_cmp which compares different instances of a GENERAL_NAME to see if they are equal or not. This function behaves incorrectly when both GENERAL_NAMEs contain an EDIPARTYNAME. A NULL pointer dereference and a crash may occur leading to a possible denial of service attack. OpenSSL itself uses the GENERAL_NAME_cmp function for two purposes: 1) Comparing CRL distribution point names between an available CRL and a CRL distribution point embedded in an X509 certificate 2) When verifying that a timestamp response token signer matches the timestamp authority name (exposed via the API functions TS_RESP_verify_response and TS_RESP_verify_token) If an attacker can control both items being compared then that attacker could trigger a crash. For example if the attacker can trick a client or server into checking a malicious certificate against a malicious CRL then this may occur. Note that some applications automatically download CRLs based on a URL embedded in a certificate. This checking happens prior to the signatures on the certificate and CRL being verified. OpenSSL's s_server, s_client and verify tools have support for the "-crl_download" option which implements automatic CRL downloading and this attack has been demonstrated to work against those tools. Note that an unrelated bug means that affected versions of OpenSSL cannot parse or construct correct encodings of EDIPARTYNAME. However it is possible to construct a malformed EDIPARTYNAME that OpenSSL's parser will accept and hence trigger this attack. All OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 versions are affected by this issue. Other OpenSSL releases are out of support and have not been checked. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1i (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1h). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2x (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2w).

  • Published: Dec 8, 2020
  • Updated: Nov 16, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2020-1971
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 5.9
  • AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CVSS v2:

  • Severity: Low
  • Score: 4.3
  • AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P

CWEs:

Software From Fixed in
openssl / openssl 1.0.2 1.0.2x
openssl / openssl 1.1.1 1.1.1i
debian / debian_linux 9.0 9.0.x
debian / debian_linux 10.0 10.0.x
fedoraproject / fedora 32 32.x
fedoraproject / fedora 33 33.x
oracle / api_gateway 11.1.2.4.0 11.1.2.4.0.x
oracle / peoplesoft_enterprise_peopletools 8.56 8.56.x
oracle / business_intelligence 12.2.1.3.0 12.2.1.3.0.x
oracle / peoplesoft_enterprise_peopletools 8.57 8.57.x
oracle / jd_edwards_world_security a9.4 a9.4.x
oracle / business_intelligence 12.2.1.4.0 12.2.1.4.0.x
oracle / enterprise_manager_base_platform 13.3.0.0 13.3.0.0.x
oracle / business_intelligence 5.5.0.0.0 5.5.0.0.0.x
oracle / peoplesoft_enterprise_peopletools 8.58 8.58.x
oracle / enterprise_manager_base_platform 13.4.0.0 13.4.0.0.x
oracle / http_server 12.2.1.4.0 12.2.1.4.0.x
oracle / enterprise_manager_for_storage_management 13.4.0.0 13.4.0.0.x
oracle / enterprise_manager_ops_center 12.4.0.0 12.4.0.0.x
oracle / mysql - 8.0.22.x
oracle / graalvm 19.3.4 19.3.4.x
oracle / graalvm 20.3.0 20.3.0.x
oracle / essbase 21.2 21.2.x
oracle / jd_edwards_enterpriseone_tools - 9.2.5.3
oracle / enterprise_communications_broker pcz3.1 pcz3.1.x
oracle / enterprise_communications_broker pcz3.2 pcz3.2.x
oracle / enterprise_communications_broker pcz3.3 pcz3.3.x
oracle / communications_unified_session_manager scz8.2.5 scz8.2.5.x
oracle / enterprise_session_border_controller cz8.2 cz8.2.x
oracle / enterprise_session_border_controller cz8.3 cz8.3.x
oracle / enterprise_session_border_controller cz8.4 cz8.4.x
oracle / communications_subscriber-aware_load_balancer cz8.2 cz8.2.x
oracle / communications_subscriber-aware_load_balancer cz8.3 cz8.3.x
oracle / communications_subscriber-aware_load_balancer cz8.4 cz8.4.x
oracle / communications_session_router cz8.2 cz8.2.x
oracle / communications_session_router cz8.3 cz8.3.x
oracle / communications_session_router cz8.4 cz8.4.x
oracle / communications_session_border_controller cz8.2 cz8.2.x
oracle / communications_session_border_controller cz8.3 cz8.3.x
oracle / communications_session_border_controller cz8.4 cz8.4.x
oracle / mysql_server 8.0.15 8.0.22.x
oracle / mysql_server - 5.7.32.x
oracle / business_intelligence 5.9.0.0.0 5.9.0.0.0.x
oracle / communications_cloud_native_core_network_function_cloud_native_environment 1.10.0 1.10.0.x
oracle / communications_diameter_intelligence_hub 8.0.0 8.1.0.x
oracle / communications_diameter_intelligence_hub 8.2.0 8.2.3.x
netapp / e-series_santricity_os_controller 11.0.0 11.60.3.x
tenable / log_correlation_engine - 6.0.9
tenable / nessus_network_monitor - 5.13.1
siemens / sinec_infrastructure_network_services - 1.0.1.1
nodejs / node.js 14.0.0 14.14.0.x
nodejs / node.js 10.0.0 10.12.0.x
nodejs / node.js 12.0.0 12.12.0.x
nodejs / node.js 15.0.0 15.5.0
nodejs / node.js 14.15.0 14.15.4
nodejs / node.js 12.13.0 12.20.1
nodejs / node.js 10.13.0 10.23.1

Frequently Asked Questions

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.