CVE-2023-6058
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in Bitdefender Safepay's handling of HTTPS connections. The issue arises when the product blocks a connection due to an untrusted server certificate but allows the user to add the site to exceptions, resulting in the product trusting the certificate for subsequent HTTPS scans. This vulnerability allows an attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack by using a self-signed certificate, which the product will trust after the site has been added to exceptions. This can lead to the interception and potential alteration of secure communications.
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 confidenceBitdefender Safepay incorrectly trusts self-signed certificates for sites added to user exceptions after the product initially blocked the connection due to an untrusted certificate. This allows an attacker performing MITM to use a self-signed certificate that the product will accept for subsequent HTTPS sessions, enabling interception and modification of encrypted traffic.
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< 27.0.25.115CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/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 Bitdefender Total Security versionOpen Bitdefender main interface, go to Settings > About, or check Add/Remove Programs for Bitdefender Total Security version numberAffected if Version is lower than 27.0.25.115
-
Verify Safepay feature existsLook for Bitdefender Safepay in the installed programs or check if Safepay browser is available in the Bitdefender interfaceAffected if Safepay feature is present on the system
-
Check for user-added browser exceptionsIn Bitdefender Safepay settings, navigate to Exceptions or Trusted Sites and review any manually added URLsAffected if Any user-defined exceptions exist for HTTPS sites
User is affected if running Bitdefender Total Security version below 27.0.25.115, Safepay is in use, and there are manually added site exceptions in Safepay.
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 · scoped27.0.25.115
Users should avoid adding sites to exceptions unless absolutely necessary and verified. Organizations should review existing exception lists and consider network-level TLS inspection as a compensating control until a vendor patch is available.
Total Security version 27.0.25.115 or later
- Open Bitdefender Total Security application
- Navigate to the 'Protection' or 'Settings' section
- Locate the 'Update' or 'Antivirus Update' option
- Click 'Update Now' to download and install the latest version
- Verify the installed version is 27.0.25.115 or higher via 'Settings' > 'About'
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6058 — 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-2023-6058 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