CVE Intelligence
Medium Memory corruption

CVE-2024-9143 — Low-level invalid GF(2^m) parameters lead to OOB memory access

Issue summary: Use of the low-level GF(2^m) elliptic curve APIs with untrusted explicit values for the field polynomial can lead to out-of-bounds memory reads or writes. Impact summary: Out of bound memory writes can lead to an application crash or even a possibility of a remote code execution, however, in all the protocols involving Elliptic Curve Cryptography that we're aware of, either only "named curves" are supported, or, if explicit curve parameters are supported, they specify an X9.62 encoding of binary (GF(2^m)) curves that can't represent problematic input values. Thus the likelihood of existence of a vulnerable application is low. In particular, the X9.62 encoding is used for ECC keys in X.509 certificates, so problematic inputs cannot occur in the context of processing X.509 certificates. Any problematic use-cases would have to be using an "exotic" curve encoding. The affected APIs include: EC_GROUP_new_curve_GF2m(), EC_GROUP_new_from_params(), and various supporting BN_GF2m_*() functions. Applications working with "exotic" explicit binary (GF(2^m)) curve parameters, that make it possible to represent invalid field polynomials with a zero constant term, via the above or similar APIs, may terminate abruptly as a result of reading or writing outside of array bounds. Remote code execution cannot easily be ruled out. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.

Published Oct 16, 2024 · 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 5.8% (30-day exploitation probability)+14
  • Technical severity (medium)+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
5.84%
ahead of 93% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Openssl
Openssl
CVSS base
4.3
Medium · 3 source(s)

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
No
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.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

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. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. EPSS ahead of 93% of scored CVEs: prioritize it in the patch queue.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (memory corruption), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Openssl Openssl ≥ 3.3.0 and < 3.3.3≥ 3.2.0 and < 3.2.4≥ 3.1.0 and < 3.1.8≥ 3.0.0 and < 3.0.16≥ 1.1.1 and < 1.1.1zb≥ 1.0.2 and < 1.0.2zl 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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
4.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium 2.8 1.4 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 via NIST National Vulnerability Database
4.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories
4.3 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — CISA-ADP via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read

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).
  • Correlate service crashes/restarts with inbound traffic; repeated crashes may indicate attempts.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSendpoint telemetry (EDR)crash dumps

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
  • CVSS changed · 4.3
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • 2024
  • CVE published
    Oct 16, 2024 · openssl

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

20 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Openssl
every CVE for this vendor
Memory corruption
same class
CWE-125
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-84784 QUIC: Unbounded RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID Backlog 16d
  • CVE-2026-84783 Use-After-Free in X.509 Extension Cache Under Concurrent Use 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 fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • 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-2024-9143 is "Low-level invalid GF(2^m) parameters lead to OOB memory access", 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 4.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 5.84% 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.