CVE-2018-11069
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 · uneditedRSA BSAFE SSL-J versions prior to 6.2.4 contain a Covert Timing Channel vulnerability during RSA decryption, also known as a Bleichenbacher attack on RSA decryption. A remote attacker may be able to recover a RSA key.
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 confidenceRSA BSAFE SSL-J versions before 6.2.4 contain a timing side-channel vulnerability (Bleichenbacher attack) in RSA decryption operations. Attackers can exploit subtle timing differences during PKCS#1 v1.5 padding validation to gradually recover RSA key material through repeated decryption oracle queries.
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< 6.2.4CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 RSA BSAFE SSL-J versionLocate the RSA BSAFE SSL-J library in your deployment (typically as a JAR file named bsafesslj.jar or similar, or as a bundled library) and query its version metadata through the product's built-in version reporting mechanism, or check the manifest file if exposed.Affected if The installed version is below 6.2.4 (for example, 6.2.3, 6.2.2, 6.1.x, etc.)
-
Confirm RSA decryption is in useExamine your application's code or configuration to determine if RSA decryption operations are being performed, particularly as part of SSL/TLS key exchange (RSA key exchange cipher suites).Affected if Your application performs RSA decryption operations, especially for SSL/TLS handshakes using RSA key exchange.
-
Check SSL/TLS server configurationIf the product is used as an SSL/TLS server, review the enabled cipher suites and verify whether RSA key exchange ciphers (such as TLS_RSA_WITH_* variants) are enabled and accepted by the server.Affected if The server accepts RSA key exchange cipher suites, allowing clients to send RSA-encrypted premaster secrets for decryption.
You are affected if your deployed RSA BSAFE SSL-J (Dell Bsafe Ssl J) version is below 6.2.4 AND your application performs RSA decryption operations (typically via SSL/TLS RSA key exchange) that can be queried by an attacker.
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 data6.2.4
Upgrade RSA BSAFE SSL-J to version 6.2.4 or later, which implements proper RSA decryption with constant-time operations or enhanced padding check mechanisms.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11069 — 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-2018-11069 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