CVE-2009-0048
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 · uneditedOpenEvidence 1.0.6 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 confidenceOpenEvidence 1.0.6 and earlier fails to properly validate the return value from OpenSSL's EVP_VerifyFinal function when verifying SSL/TLS certificate chains. When certificates use DSA or ECDSA keys with malformed signatures, the function returns 0 (verification failure), but the application does not check for this condition and may incorrectly accept invalid certificate chains as valid.
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<= 1.0.6= 1.0.5CVSS 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.
-
Identify OpenEvidence installation and versionLocate the OpenEvidence installation directory and check the version file or executable version information. Common locations may include /opt/openevidence, /usr/share/openevidence, or a web server document root if integrated with a web application.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.6 or earlier, or specifically 1.0.5
-
Verify SSL/TLS certificate verification is in useInspect the OpenEvidence configuration files for SSL/TLS settings. Look for configuration parameters related to certificate chain verification, SSL verification, or TLS client/server authentication.Affected if SSL/TLS certificate verification is enabled and the application attempts to verify certificate chains using OpenSSL
-
Check for DSA or ECDSA certificate usageExamine any installed certificates or certificate configuration used by OpenEvidence. Identify the key algorithm type (DSA, ECDSA, or RSA) used in the certificate chain.Affected if Certificates using DSA or ECDSA keys are in use for SSL/TLS connections
-
Inspect certificate validation code for EVP_VerifyFinal return value checkingReview the source code or binary that handles SSL/TLS certificate verification. Specifically examine the code path that calls EVP_VerifyFinal and verify whether the return value is explicitly checked to equal 1 for success.Affected if The code does not explicitly check that EVP_VerifyFinal returns exactly 1; instead it may treat any non-negative return as success or fails to handle the return value of 0 (verification failure)
A user is affected if OpenEvidence version 1.0.6 or earlier is installed, SSL/TLS certificate verification is enabled, DSA or ECDSA certificates are used, and the code fails to properly check that EVP_VerifyFinal returns exactly 1 (accepting 0 as valid instead of as verification failure).
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 dataModify the code to explicitly check that EVP_VerifyFinal returns exactly 1 for success; any other return value (0 or -1) should cause certificate validation to fail and the connection to be rejected.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0048 — 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-2009-0048 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