CVE-2023-46233
Public on
Last Modified:
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).
| Red Hat | NVD | |
|---|---|---|
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?
My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?
What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?
What is a mitigation?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
