CVE-2015-0533
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 · uneditedEMC RSA BSAFE Micro Edition Suite (MES) 4.0.x before 4.0.8 and 4.1.x before 4.1.3 and RSA BSAFE SSL-C 2.8.9 and earlier allow remote SSL servers to conduct ECDHE-to-ECDH downgrade attacks and trigger a loss of forward secrecy by omitting the ServerKeyExchange message, a similar issue to CVE-2014-3572.
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 confidenceEMC RSA BSAFE libraries contain a vulnerability allowing remote SSL servers to perform ECDHE-to-ECDH downgrade attacks by omitting the ServerKeyExchange message during TLS handshake. This forces the use of static ECDH key exchange instead of ephemeral ECDHE, resulting in loss of forward secrecy.
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>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.8>= 4.1.0, < 4.1.3<= 2.8.9CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 Dell Bsafe library usageSearch your application dependencies, build artifacts, or installed packages for 'bsafe', 'Dell Bsafe', 'RSA BSAFE', or 'DELLBsafe'Affected if The library is present in your environment
-
Check Dell Bsafe versionLocate the version file or metadata for the bsafe library (typically in library documentation, manifest, or package manager)Affected if Version is >= 4.0.0 and < 4.0.8, OR >= 4.1.0 and < 4.1.3
-
Identify Dell Bsafe Ssl C usageSearch for 'bsafe ssl c', 'Dell Bsafe Ssl C', 'SSL-C', or 'bsafesslc' in your dependencies or installed componentsAffected if The SSL-C library is present in your environment
-
Check Dell Bsafe Ssl C versionLocate the version information for the bsafe ssl c libraryAffected if Version is <= 2.8.9
-
Verify TLS client configurationIf using a vulnerable BSAFE version, check if your TLS client is configured to only accept ephemeral ECDHE key exchange (inspect cipher suite configuration)Affected if Your client allows fallback to static ECDH cipher suites and connects to potentially malicious TLS servers
You are affected if Dell Bsafe version 4.0.0-4.0.7, 4.1.0-4.1.2, or Dell Bsafe Ssl C version <= 2.8.9 is present in your environment and your TLS implementation can be coerced into using static ECDH key exchange.
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 data4.0.84.1.3
Update RSA BSAFE Micro Edition Suite to version 4.0.8+/4.1.3+ and SSL-C to 2.8.10+ to remediate the downgrade attack vector.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0533 — 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-2015-0533 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