CVE-2023-46233

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

ImportantImportant ImpactWhat does this mean?
DescriptionStatementMitigationAdditional informationCVSS Score DetailsWeakness (CWE)FAQ

Description

A vulnerability was found in crypto-js in how PBKDF2 is 1,000 times weaker than originally specified in 1993 and at least 1,300,000 times weaker than the current industry standard. This issue is because both default to SHA1, a cryptographic hash algorithm considered insecure since at least 2005, and default to one single iteration, a 'strength' or 'difficulty' value specified at 1,000 when specified in 1993. PBKDF2 relies on the iteration count as a countermeasure to preimage and collision attacks.

Statement

The vulnerability in crypto-js's PBKDF2 implementation represents a important CVE issue due to its fundamental impact on cryptographic security. PBKDF2 is widely used for password protection and signature generation, making it a core component of many security-critical systems. However, the default settings in crypto-js result in significantly weaker security than industry standards, with the algorithm being 1,000 times weaker than originally specified in 1993 and millions of times weaker than current recommendations. This weakness stems from the use of the insecure SHA1 hash algorithm and the default of only one iteration, both of which greatly diminish the resistance against various attacks. Consequently, attackers can exploit this vulnerability to create identical cryptographic signatures, potentially gaining unauthorized access to sensitive information or compromising system integrity. Given the widespread use of crypto-js and the important role of PBKDF2 in cryptographic operations, addressing this vulnerability is paramount to safeguarding against security breaches and maintaining trust in digital systems.

Mitigation

Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options don't meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.

Additional information

  • Bugzilla 2246369: crypto-js: PBKDF2 1,000 times weaker than specified in 1993 and 1.3M times weaker than current standard
  • (CWE-328|CWE-916): Use of Weak Hash or Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort
  • FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2023-46233

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
Red HatNVD

CVSS v3 Base Score

9.1

9.1

Attack Vector

Network

Network

Attack Complexity

Low

Low

Privileges Required

None

None

User Interaction

None

None

Scope

Unchanged

Unchanged

Confidentiality Impact

High

High

Integrity Impact

High

High

Availability Impact

None

None

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.