PycryptodomeApplication
CVE-2023-52323
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 · uneditedPyCryptodome and pycryptodomex before 3.19.1 allow side-channel leakage for OAEP decryption, exploitable for a Manger attack.
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 confidencePyCryptodome and pycryptodomex before version 3.19.1 contain a side-channel leakage vulnerability in OAEP (Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding) decryption that can be exploited via a Manger attack. This attack exploits timing or other side-channel information to recover plaintext by manipulating ciphertext and observing decryption failure patterns.
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
PycryptodomeApplication
< 3.19.1
PycryptodomexApplication
< 3.19.1CVSS 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
- 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 installed packageRun 'pip show pycryptodome' or 'pip show pycryptodomex' to determine which package is installedAffected if Either pycryptodome or pycryptodomex is present
-
Check installed versionNote the Version field from the pip show outputAffected if Version is lower than 3.19.1
-
Search for OAEP usage in codebaseSearch source files for 'OAEP', 'PKCS1_OAEP', or 'Crypto.Cipher' patterns indicating OAEP cipher usageAffected if Codebase uses OAEP-based encryption or decryption with RSA or other asymmetric keys
-
Verify OAEP decryption is performedInspect code paths that perform decryption using OAEP-constructed ciphertext (look for cipher.decrypt calls on OAEP-encrypted data)Affected if The application performs OAEP decryption operations
User is affected if PyCryptodome or Pycryptodomex version is below 3.19.1 AND the application performs OAEP decryption of untrusted ciphertext.
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 · scoped3.19.1
Update PyCryptodome/pycryptodomex to version 3.19.1 or later to obtain the patched implementation that eliminates side-channel leakage in OAEP decryption. Verify that OAEP-encrypted data can still be correctly decrypted after the update.
3.19.1
- Ensure you are using PyCryptodome or pycryptodomex in your project
- Upgrade the library to version 3.19.1 or later using your package manager
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Pycryptodome
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-52323 — 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-2023-52323 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