CVE-2024-3652
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 · uneditedThe Libreswan Project was notified of an issue causing libreswan to restart when using IKEv1 without specifying an esp= line. When the peer requests AES-GMAC, libreswan's default proposal handler causes an assertion failure and crashes and restarts. IKEv2 connections are not affected.
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 confidenceLibreswan IKEv1 connections without an explicit esp= configuration line trigger an assertion failure in the default proposal handler when the peer requests AES-GMAC, causing the daemon to crash and restart. IKEv2 connections are unaffected.
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>= 3.22, < 4.15CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 installed Libreswan versionRun 'ipsec --version' or 'rpm -q libreswan' or 'dpkg -l | grep libreswan' to obtain the installed version numberAffected if Version is 3.22 or higher but lower than 4.15
-
Locate IKEv1 connection definitionsExamine /etc/ipsec.conf and files in /etc/ipsec.d/ for connection definitions. IKEv1 connections are those without 'ikev2=yes' or with explicit IKEv1 settings like 'phase1alg' or 'keyexchange=ikev1'Affected if Any IKEv1 connections exist in the configuration
-
Identify connections without explicit esp= lineWithin each IKEv1 connection definition, search for the 'esp=' directive. Connections missing this line rely on the default proposal handlerAffected if Any IKEv1 connection lacks an explicit 'esp=' configuration line
-
Verify AES-GMAC is in default proposalsReview /etc/ipsec.conf for 'esp' defaults or check swanctl configuration if used. AES-GMAC may be included in default ESP proposals on systems with AES-GCM supportAffected if AES-GMAC could be selected as the default ESP algorithm for connections without explicit esp=
If Libreswan version is between 3.22 and 4.14 and there are IKEv1 connections lacking explicit esp= configuration, the environment is affected by this vulnerability and will crash when a peer proposes AES-GMAC.
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 · scoped4.15
Configure an explicit esp= line in the IKEv1 connection definitions to bypass the default proposal handler that triggers the assertion failure.
4.15
- 1. Check current Libreswan version using: ipsec --version
- 2. Upgrade Libreswan to version 4.15 or later using your system's package manager (e.g., yum update libreswan or apt-get install libreswan)
- 3. After upgrade, restart the ipsec service: systemctl restart ipsec
- 4. Verify the new version is installed: ipsec --version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-3652 — 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-2024-3652 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