CVE-2014-8730

TLS: incorrect check of padding bytes when using CBC cipher suites

Published Dec 10, 2014 CVSS 2.0 · 4.3 Medium EPSS 13.8% KEV · Not listed
Description
The SSL profiles component in F5 BIG-IP LTM, APM, and ASM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, AAM 11.4.0 through 11.5.1, AFM 11.3.0 through 11.5.1, Analytics 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 10.1.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.3.0, PEM 11.3.0 through 11.6.0, and PSM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 and BIG-IQ Cloud and Security 4.0.0 through 4.4.0 and Device 4.2.0 through 4.4.0, when using TLS 1.x before TLS 1.2, does not properly check CBC padding bytes when terminating connections, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, a variant of CVE-2014-3566 (aka POODLE). NOTE: the scope of this identifier is limited to the F5 implementation only. Other vulnerable implementations should receive their own CVE ID, since this is not a vulnerability within the design of TLS 1.x itself.

Remediation

No solution or workaround provided in the CVE record

Tracking

Sign in to view the affected projects.

Advisories

Source ID Title
EUVD EUVD EUVD-2014-8562 The SSL profiles component in F5 BIG-IP LTM, APM, and ASM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, AAM 11.4.0 through 11.5.1, AFM 11.3.0 through 11.5.1, Analytics 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 10.1.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.3.0, PEM 11.3.0 through 11.6.0, and PSM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 and BIG-IQ Cloud and Security 4.0.0 through 4.4.0 and Device 4.2.0 through 4.4.0, when using TLS 1.x before TLS 1.2, does not properly check CBC padding bytes when terminating connections, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, a variant of CVE-2014-3566 (aka POODLE). NOTE: the scope of this identifier is limited to the F5 implementation only. Other vulnerable implementations should receive their own CVE ID, since this is not a vulnerability within the design of TLS 1.x itself.
History

No history.