CVE-2009-0047
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedGale 0.99 and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL EVP_VerifyFinal function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature for DSA and ECDSA keys, a similar vulnerability to CVE-2008-5077.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceGale versions 0.99 and earlier fail to properly check the return value from OpenSSL's EVP_VerifyFinal function when validating SSL/TLS certificate chains. This allows remote attackers to bypass certificate validation by presenting malformed DSA or ECDSA signatures, causing the application to accept invalid or malicious certificates as legitimate.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 0.99= 0.15= 0.15b= 0.15c= 0.16= 0.16a= 0.17= 0.17a= 0.18= 0.18b= 0.18c= 0.19CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate Gale installationRun 'which gale' or search for the gale binary in common paths such as /usr/bin/gale, /usr/local/bin/galeAffected if The gale executable is found on the system
-
Determine installed Gale versionExecute 'gale --version' or query the package manager (dpkg -l gale, rpm -q gale) for the installed versionAffected if The version returned is 0.99 or any of the listed affected versions (0.15, 0.15b, 0.15c, 0.16, 0.16a, 0.17, 0.17a, 0.18, 0.18b, 0.18c, 0.19)
-
Check for SSL/TLS configurationExamine Gale configuration files in the user's home directory (such as ~/.gale/ or similar) for SSL/TLS settings or server configurations that use SSL/TLSAffected if SSL/TLS is enabled or configured for any connections
The environment is affected if Gale version 0.99 or earlier is installed and SSL/TLS connections are used, because the certificate validation bypass requires the application to actually perform SSL/TLS certificate verification.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Gale to a version newer than 0.99 where the EVP_VerifyFinal return value is properly checked; alternatively, avoid using Gale with untrusted SSL/TLS endpoints until an update is available.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0047 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-0047 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data