CVE-2024-26306
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 · uneditediPerf3 before 3.17, when used with OpenSSL before 3.2.0 as a server with RSA authentication, allows a timing side channel in RSA decryption operations. This side channel could be sufficient for an attacker to recover credential plaintext. It requires the attacker to send a large number of messages for decryption, as described in "Everlasting ROBOT: the Marvin Attack" by Hubert Kario.
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 confidenceiPerf3 before version 3.17 contains a timing side-channel vulnerability in RSA decryption when used as a server with RSA authentication against OpenSSL versions before 3.2.0. An attacker can exploit this by sending numerous messages for decryption and measuring timing differences to eventually recover credential plaintext, as described in the Marvin Attack research.
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< 3.17all 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
- 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.
-
Check iPerf3 versionRun 'iperf3 --version' or 'rpm -q iperf3' / 'dpkg -l iperf3' to find the installed versionAffected if Version is lower than 3.17
-
Check OpenSSL versionRun 'openssl version' to identify the OpenSSL library versionAffected if Version is earlier than 3.2.0 (e.g., 3.0.x, 1.1.x, etc.)
-
Verify iPerf3 server mode with RSA authenticationInspect running iPerf3 server processes: 'ps aux | grep iperf3' and check for -s flag. Review any configuration files or authentication setup to confirm RSA-based key exchange is in use rather than ephemeral methods like ECDHEAffected if iPerf3 is running as a server (-s) with RSA-based client authentication enabled and both iPerf3 < 3.17 and OpenSSL < 3.2.0 conditions are met
You are affected if iPerf3 version is below 3.17, OpenSSL version is below 3.2.0, and iPerf3 is operating as a server using RSA authentication for client connections.
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 · scoped3.17
Upgrade iPerf3 to version 3.17 or later and OpenSSL to version 3.2.0 or later. Consider migrating to ephemeral key exchanges (e.g., ECDHE) or post-quantum algorithms to eliminate RSA-based authentication timing risks.
iperf3 >= 3.17 with OpenSSL >= 3.2.0 when RSA authentication is used
- Check the current iperf3 version installed (e.g., using 'iperf3 --version')
- Upgrade iperf3 to version 3.17 or later from the official source (downloads.es.net or github.com)
- If using RSA authentication, also ensure OpenSSL is updated to version 3.2.0 or later
- Restart the iperf3 server after upgrading
- Verify the upgraded iperf3 version is running (e.g., using 'iperf3 --version')
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2024-26306 — 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-2024-26306 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