ZxidApplication

CVE-2009-0051

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2009-01-07
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 0.29 or later.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
ZXID 0.29 and earlier does not properly check the return value from the OpenSSL DSA_verify function, which allows remote attackers to bypass validation of the certificate chain via a malformed SSL/TLS signature, 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 confidence

ZXID versions 0.29 and earlier fail to check the return value from OpenSSL's DSA_verify function during SSL/TLS certificate chain validation. When a malformed signature is presented, DSA_verify returns failure but ZXID continues processing as if validation passed, allowing attackers to bypass certificate validation through specially crafted signatures.

MitigationUpgrade to a newer ZXID version that properly validates DSA_verify return values, or apply a patch to add proper error handling that rejects certificates when DSA_verify fails.

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
ZxidApplication
Affected:<= 0.29= 0.1= 0.2= 0.3= 0.4= 0.5= 0.6= 0.7= 0.8= 0.9= 0.10= 0.11

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify ZXID version
    Run 'zxid -v' or check the installed package version using your system package manager (dpkg -l zxid, rpm -qi zxid, or similar). If built from source, check the version string in the source archive or build logs.
    Affected if The installed version is 0.29 or earlier, or matches any of these: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.10, 0.11, or any version up to and including 0.29.
  2. Confirm SSL/TLS is in use
    Inspect ZXID configuration files (typically zxid.conf or similar) for SSL, TLS, or HTTPS settings. Check if ZXID is configured to validate client or server certificates using OpenSSL DSA keys.
    Affected if ZXID is configured to perform SSL/TLS certificate validation with DSA-based certificates.
  3. Check for DSA certificate usage
    Review SSL/TLS configuration for references to DSA-based certificates or DSA certificate files. Look for certificate files using 'openssl x509 -in cert.pem -text' to verify the algorithm; DSA certificates will show 'Subject Public Key Algorithm: id-ecPublicKey' or DSA parameters.
    Affected if DSA-based certificates are being used for SSL/TLS validation in ZXID.
  4. Verify OpenSSL DSA_verify call is reached
    This vulnerability triggers when ZXID attempts to validate a certificate chain containing DSA signatures. The vulnerable code path is exercised when a peer presents a certificate during SSL/TLS handshake.
    Affected if SSL/TLS connections are established where ZXID validates a certificate chain containing DSA-signed certificates.

You are affected if ZXID version 0.29 or earlier is installed AND SSL/TLS certificate validation with DSA certificates is enabled and actively used.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 0.29
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to a newer ZXID version that properly validates DSA_verify return values, or apply a patch to add proper error handling that rejects certificates when DSA_verify fails.

Fix this in Zxid Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,560
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0051 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-0051 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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