CVE-2025-69419
Issue summary: Calling PKCS12_get_friendlyname() function on a maliciously crafted PKCS#12 file with a BMPString (UTF-16BE) friendly name containing non-ASCII BMP code point can trigger a one byte write before the allocated buffer.
Impact summary: The out-of-bounds write can cause a memory corruption which can have various consequences including a Denial of Service.
The OPENSSL_uni2utf8() function performs a two-pass conversion of a PKCS#12 BMPString (UTF-16BE) to UTF-8. In the second pass, when emitting UTF-8 bytes, the helper function bmp_to_utf8() incorrectly forwards the remaining UTF-16 source byte count as the destination buffer capacity to UTF8_putc(). For BMP code points above U+07FF, UTF-8 requires three bytes, but the forwarded capacity can be just two bytes. UTF8_putc() then returns -1, and this negative value is added to the output length without validation, causing the length to become negative. The subsequent trailing NUL byte is then written at a negative offset, causing write outside of heap allocated buffer.
The vulnerability is reachable via the public PKCS12_get_friendlyname() API when parsing attacker-controlled PKCS#12 files. While PKCS12_parse() uses a different code path that avoids this issue, PKCS12_get_friendlyname() directly invokes the vulnerable function. Exploitation requires an attacker to provide a malicious PKCS#12 file to be parsed by the application and the attacker can just trigger a one zero byte write before the allocated buffer. For that reason the issue was assessed as Low severity according to our Security Policy.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the PKCS#12 implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not affected by this issue.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| openssl / openssl | 1.1.1 | 1.1.1ze |
| openssl / openssl | 3.0.0 | 3.0.19 |
| openssl / openssl | 3.3.0 | 3.3.6 |
| openssl / openssl | 3.4.0 | 3.4.4 |
| openssl / openssl | 3.5.0 | 3.5.5 |
| openssl / openssl | 3.6.0 | 3.6.1 |
- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/41be0f216404f14457bbf3b9cc488dba60b49296
- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7e9cac9832e4705b91987c2474ed06a37a93cecb
- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/a26a90d38edec3748566129d824e664b54bee2e2
- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/cda12de3bc0e333ea8d2c6fd15001dbdaf280015
- https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/ff628933755075446bca8307e8417c14d164b535
- https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260127.txt
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
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.