CVE Intelligence
Medium Logic error

CVE-2023-5678 — Excessive time spent in DH check / generation with large Q parameter value

Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking excessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow. Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to generate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications that use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. While DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817), DH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore vulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters. Likewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large P, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q. An application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. DH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this are DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate(). Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the "-pubcheck" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.

Published Nov 6, 2023 · Updated Oct 14, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: openssl

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 4.5% (30-day exploitation probability)+14
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
4.46%
ahead of 91% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Openssl
Openssl
CVSS base
5.3
Medium · 4 source(s)
Prioritization reference: 7.5 provisional

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

  • Documented patch — git.openssl.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
  • Documented patch — git.openssl.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Openssl Openssl).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
  4. EPSS ahead of 91% of scored CVEs: prioritize it in the patch queue.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (logic error), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Openssl Openssl ≥ 1.0.2 and < 1.0.2zj≥ 1.1.1 and < 1.1.1x≥ 3.0.0 and < 3.0.13≥ 3.1.0 and < 3.1.5 Vulnerable NIST National Vulnerability Database
Openssl Openssl ≥ 1.0.2 and < 1.0.2zj≥ 1.1.1 and < 1.1.1x≥ 3.0.0 and < 3.0.13≥ 3.1.0 and < 3.1.5 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
7.5 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
5.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 3.9 1.4 nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 3.9 1.4 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
5.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — CISA-ADP via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)
Sources disagree significantly and the divergence is under review. Every score is kept with its origin. For prioritization we use 7.5 (GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-754 · Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · openssl/openssl
    Oct 14, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 14, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 14, 2026
  • Fix documented
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Affected products added · openssl/openssl
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVSS changed · 5.3
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Modified
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 14, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • 2023
  • CVE published
    Nov 6, 2023 · openssl

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 2× References added · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026

References

25 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Openssl
every CVE for this vendor
Logic error
same class
CWE-754
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-84783 Use-After-Free in X.509 Extension Cache Under Concurrent Use 16d
  • CVE-2026-84784 QUIC: Unbounded RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID Backlog 16d
  • CVE-2026-84782 DTLS Retransmits Handshake Messages From a Stale Buffer Offset 16d
  • CVE-2026-75805 NULL Pointer Dereference in CMP Client Revocation Response Handling 16d
  • CVE-2026-75806 Unauthenticated and Undersized DTLS 1.2 AEAD Record Causes DoS 16d
  • CVE-2026-77696 Timing Side-Channel in SM2 Signature Generation 16d

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2023-5678 is "Excessive time spent in DH check / generation with large Q parameter value", rated Medium. It affects Openssl (Openssl); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 4.46% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.