CVE-2015-0536
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, when client authentication and an ephemeral Diffie-Hellman ciphersuite are enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon crash) via a ClientKeyExchange message with a length of zero, a similar issue to CVE-2015-1787.
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 fail to properly validate the length field in ClientKeyExchange messages during TLS handshake. When client authentication and ephemeral Diffie-Hellman ciphersuites are both enabled, a zero-length ClientKeyExchange triggers a NULL pointer dereference or similar crash in the SSL daemon, causing denial of service.
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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 RSA BSAFE library in useLocate the BSAFE library files on the system. Check product documentation or software inventory for RSA BSAFE or Dell Bsafe/Dell Bsafe Ssl C usage.Affected if The system uses Dell Bsafe version < 4.0.8, >= 4.1.0 and < 4.1.3, or Dell Bsafe Ssl C version <= 2.8.9
-
Verify client authentication is enabledReview TLS/SSL configuration files or application settings to determine if client authentication (client certificates) is required or enabled for TLS connections.Affected if Client authentication is enabled on the TLS server using the affected BSAFE library
-
Verify ephemeral DH ciphersuites are enabledReview TLS cipher suite configuration and check if any Diffie-Hellman ephemeral ciphersuites (such as DHE or DH suites) are enabled in the SSL/TLS settings.Affected if Ephemeral DH ciphersuites (DHE, DH) are enabled in the cipher suite list
-
Confirm both conditions coexistReview system configuration to confirm both client authentication AND ephemeral DH ciphersuites are active simultaneously.Affected if Both client authentication and ephemeral DH ciphersuites are enabled together
A system is affected only if it uses a vulnerable Dell Bsafe or Dell Bsafe Ssl C version AND has both client authentication and ephemeral DH ciphersuites enabled simultaneously.
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 to RSA BSAFE MES 4.0.8/4.1.3 or later, or SSL-C 2.8.10 or later. Asworkarounds, disable client authentication or ephemeral DH ciphersuites if patching is not immediately feasible.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0536 — 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-2015-0536 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