CVE-2021-41990
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 · uneditedThe gmp plugin in strongSwan before 5.9.4 has a remote integer overflow via a crafted certificate with an RSASSA-PSS signature. For example, this can be triggered by an unrelated self-signed CA certificate sent by an initiator. Remote code execution cannot occur.
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 confidenceThe gmp plugin in strongSwan before 5.9.4 contains a remote integer overflow vulnerability in its certificate processing logic when handling RSASSA-PSS signatures. An attacker can trigger this by sending a crafted, unrelated self-signed CA certificate during the authentication phase, potentially causing a denial-of-service condition through the overflow.
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= 10.0= 11.0= 33= 34= 35>= 5.6.1, < 5.9.4all versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Check if strongSwan is installedRun 'strongswan --version' or check for the presence of strongSwan binaries in /usr/sbin (e.g., 'ls -la /usr/sbin/charon' or 'which ipsec')Affected if strongSwan is installed and the version is between 5.6.1 and 5.9.3 inclusive
-
Identify the installed strongSwan versionRun 'strongswan --version' and parse the version number, or check package manager (dpkg -l | grep strongswan on Debian, rpm -qa | grep strongswan on Fedora)Affected if Version is 5.9.3 or earlier (versions 5.6.1 through 5.9.3 are vulnerable)
-
Verify if the gmp plugin is enabledCheck the strongSwan configuration: look for 'gmp' in /etc/strongswan.conf or in the loaded plugins list. Run 'ipsec listplugins' if available, or check /etc/strongswan.d/ for the gmp plugin configuration directoryAffected if The gmp plugin is loaded or enabled in the configuration
-
Confirm RSA/PSS signature usage in IPsec configurationReview /etc/ipsec.conf and any included configuration files in /etc/ipsec.d/ for 'rsasig' or 'sha2' related policies that may indicate RSASSA-PSS signature handling is configuredAffected if The VPN is configured to use RSA authentication with RSASSA-PSS signature algorithms, which triggers the vulnerable code path
-
Check if remote access VPN is exposedReview firewall rules and ipsec.conf for 'leftsubnet', 'rightsubnet', and 'remote' settings to determine if the IPsec gateway accepts remote connections from untrusted peersAffected if The strongSwan VPN gateway accepts remote connections from untrusted or public networks, allowing an attacker to send the crafted certificate during the authentication phase
You are affected if strongSwan version 5.6.1 through 5.9.3 is installed with the gmp plugin enabled, and the VPN accepts remote connections that could trigger the RSASSA-PSS certificate processing vulnerability.
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.
dbcve · scoped5.9.4
Upgrade strongSwan to version 5.9.4 or later to obtain the patched gmp plugin. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider disabling the gmp plugin or restricting remote access to trusted VPN peers only.
strongSwan 5.9.4 or later
- 1. Identify the current strongSwan version installed (e.g., run 'strongswan -v' or check package manager)
- 2. For Debian systems: run 'apt update' followed by 'apt install strongswan' to upgrade to the fixed version
- 3. For Fedora systems: run 'dnf update strongswan' to upgrade to the fixed version
- 4. For Siemens industrial products: obtain and apply the latest firmware update from Siemens cert-portal
- 5. After upgrading, restart the strongSwan service (e.g., 'systemctl restart strongswan' or 'service strongswan restart')
- 6. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the version is 5.9.4 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-41990 — 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-2021-41990 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