Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:05:37 +0100
From: Gsunde Orangen <>
Subject: Re: Being vulnerable to POODLE

On 26.12.2015, 11:41 wrote:
> On 2015-12-26 07:28:52 +0000, Sevan Janiyan wrote:
>  > Hi, If you have a piece of software which is vulnerable to POODLE,
>  > should a CVE be requested for it or should CVE-2014-3566 just be
>  > referenced in any advisories published?
> The POODLE is an OpenSSL vulnerability, so referencing CVE-2014-3566
> should be enough.
Nope, it is not a vulnerability specific to OpenSSL, but a design
weakness in the SSLv3 protocol - so all implementations of SSLv3 are
affected. I would use the same CVE-2014-3566 for all software that still
uses SSLv3.
This is different to "POODLE TLS", where some implementations (but not
OpenSSL) contained a similar vulnerability in their implementation of
the TLS 1.0 protocol (although the TLS 1.0 standard itself does not have
it). In this case different CVE IDs are suggested - see Mitre's
statement at [1]
"POODLE TLS" is references in multiple CVEs, see [2]


>  > It turns out that CoovaChilli is vulnerable to POODLE & I'd
>  > like to follow the correct procedure regarding disclosure. There's
>  > a fix pending due to needing further testing at which point an
>  > advisory will be published with the necessary details.
> Does the update of OpenSSL eliminate this vulnerability?
No - see above...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.