dbcve.org
BsafeApplication · Dell

CVE-2015-0534

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2015-08-20
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 4.0.8 / 4.1.3 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
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
EMC RSA BSAFE Micro Edition Suite (MES) 4.0.x before 4.0.8 and 4.1.x before 4.1.3, RSA BSAFE Crypto-J before 6.2, RSA BSAFE SSL-J before 6.2, and RSA BSAFE SSL-C 2.8.9 and earlier do not enforce certain constraints on certificate data, which allows remote attackers to defeat a fingerprint-based certificate-blacklist protection mechanism by including crafted data within a certificate's unsigned portion, a similar issue to CVE-2014-8275.

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

The vulnerability allows attackers to bypass fingerprint-based certificate blacklisting by embedding crafted data within the unsigned portion of a certificate (such as extensions). Since the fingerprint is calculated over the entire certificate but the blacklist only checks specific signed fields, attackers can modify unsigned portions to produce different fingerprints while preserving the certificate's core identity, defeating blacklist protections.

MitigationUpdate RSA BSAFE libraries to version 4.0.8+/4.1.3+ (MES), 6.2+ (Crypto-J/SSL-J), or later (SSL-C). Review certificate validation code to ensure unsigned certificate fields are included in fingerprint calculations and cannot be manipulated to bypass blacklists.

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
BsafeApplication
Affected:>= 4.0.0, < 4.0.8>= 4.1.0, < 4.1.3
Bsafe Ssl CApplication
Affected:<= 2.8.9
Bsafe Ssl JApplication
Affected:< 6.2

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
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 checks

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

  1. Identify RSA BSAFE library usage
    Search for BSAFE library files (bsafe, libbsafe, Crypto-J, SSL-J) in your application dependencies, classpath, or system libraries. Check build files (pom.xml, package.json, gradle files) and system paths for references to 'RSA BSAFE', 'Dell Bsafe', 'bsafe', or similar naming.
    Affected if RSA BSAFE libraries are found in the application or system
  2. Determine the exact BSAFE library version
    Locate the specific version file or metadata for the BSAFE library (often in MANIFEST.MF, version.properties, or library jar文件名). For Dell Bsafe Ssl C, check libsslc or similar library files. For Dell Bsafe Ssl J, check SSL-J or Crypto-J jar versions.
    Affected if Version is: Bsafe >= 4.0.0 and < 4.0.8; OR Bsafe >= 4.1.0 and < 4.1.3; OR Bsafe Ssl C <= 2.8.9; OR Bsafe Ssl J < 6.2
  3. Identify fingerprint-based blacklist implementation
    Search certificate validation code for 'fingerprint', 'hash', 'SHA1', 'SHA256' combined with 'blacklist', 'revocation', or 'check' keywords. Examine how certificates are validated, specifically looking for fingerprint calculation over certificate data.
    Affected if Code implements fingerprint-based certificate blacklisting using certificate data
  4. Verify if unsigned certificate fields are included in fingerprint calculation
    Examine the fingerprint calculation logic in the blacklist code. Determine whether the fingerprint is computed over signed fields only, or over the entire certificate including unsigned extensions and fields. Review code that extracts certificate data for hashing.
    Affected if Fingerprint is calculated only over signed fields, excluding unsigned extensions or other mutable certificate portions

Environment is affected if RSA BSAFE libraries within the specified version ranges are in use AND the application implements fingerprint-based certificate blacklisting that does not include unsigned certificate fields in its fingerprint calculation.

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 4.0.8 / 4.1.3 / 6.2 or later
Fixed in 4.0.84.1.36.2
Interim mitigation

Update RSA BSAFE libraries to version 4.0.8+/4.1.3+ (MES), 6.2+ (Crypto-J/SSL-J), or later (SSL-C). Review certificate validation code to ensure unsigned certificate fields are included in fingerprint calculations and cannot be manipulated to bypass blacklists.

Fix this in Bsafe Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
28.0 hours of engineering $4,760
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0534 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2015-0534 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