CVE-2023-24594
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 · uneditedWhen an SSL profile is configured on a Virtual Server, undisclosed traffic can cause an increase in CPU or SSL accelerator resource utilization. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
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 · moderate confidenceThis is a denial-of-service vulnerability in F5 BIG-IP where certain undisclosed traffic patterns sent to a Virtual Server with an SSL profile configured can cause excessive CPU or SSL accelerator resource utilization, potentially degrading or disrupting services.
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= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2= 14.1.5= 15.1.4.1= 16.1.2CVSS 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 BIG-IP system versionRun command 'tmsh show sys version' or view the version in the web UI under System > PlatformAffected if The installed version is exactly 14.1.5, 15.1.4.1, or 16.1.2
-
Identify Virtual Servers configuredRun command 'tmsh list ltm virtual one-line' to list all virtual servers, or view them in the web UI under Local Traffic > Virtual ServersAffected if Any Virtual Servers exist on the system
-
Verify SSL profile attachmentExamine the virtual server output for 'profile clientssl' or 'profile serverssl' entries, or run 'tmsh list ltm virtual <name> profiles' for each virtual serverAffected if Any Virtual Server has an SSL client or server profile assigned
The environment is affected if running exactly version 14.1.5, 15.1.4.1, or 16.1.2 AND has at least one Virtual Server configured with an SSL profile.
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 dataApply the vendor-supplied patch or upgrade to a F5 BIG-IP version that addresses CVE-2023-24594, and verify SSL profile functionality post-update.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-24594 — 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-2023-24594 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