CVE-2023-0430
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 · uneditedCertificate OCSP revocation status was not checked when verifying S/Mime signatures. Mail signed with a revoked certificate would be displayed as having a valid signature. Thunderbird versions from 68 to 102.7.0 were affected by this bug. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 102.7.1.
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 confidenceCertificate OCSP revocation status was not checked when verifying S/MIME signatures in Thunderbird versions 68 through 102.7.0, causing emails signed with revoked certificates to incorrectly display as having valid signatures.
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>= 68.0, < 102.7.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Check if Thunderbird is installedOn Linux, run 'which thunderbird' or 'command -v thunderbird'. On Windows, check for C:\Program Files\Mozilla Thunderbird\thunderbird.exe or C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Thunderbird\thunderbird.exe. On macOS, check /Applications/Thunderbird.appAffected if Thunderbird is found on the system
-
Determine the installed Thunderbird versionOn Linux or macOS, run 'thunderbird --version' in a terminal. On Windows, open Thunderbird and navigate to Help > About Thunderbird to display the exact version numberAffected if Version number is 68.0 or higher but below 102.7.1 (vulnerable range: 68.0 through 102.7.0)
-
Verify S/MIME signing is in useIn Thunderbird, go to Account Settings and look for End-to-End Encryption settings. Check if S/MIME signing is enabled for any email account by inspecting the security settings for each configured accountAffected if S/MIME email signing is enabled and a signing certificate is configured
The environment is affected if Thunderbird version is between 68.0 and 102.7.0 AND S/MIME signing is used to sign emails, since the OCSP revocation check was not performed for those signatures in this version range.
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 · scoped102.7.1
Update Thunderbird to version 102.7.1 or later to enable proper OCSP revocation checking for S/MIME email signatures.
Thunderbird 102.7.1
- Back up your Thunderbird profile and settings before upgrading
- Download Thunderbird 102.7.1 or later from the official Mozilla Thunderbird website
- Install the new version, replacing the existing installation
- Launch Thunderbird and verify that S/MIME signature verification now properly checks OCSP revocation status
- Restore your profile if needed or verify all settings and accounts are functioning correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-0430 — 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-2023-0430 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