Aggregating NVD, CVE, and multi-source threat feeds, this list provides deep analysis of high-risk threats such as RCE. By integrating CVSS and EPSS models, the system dynamically tracks Exp (Exploit) resources and PoC availability to accurately assess Exploitability. Combined with official Patches and remediation strategies, it helps prioritize Vulnerability Management workflows, significantly shortening response cycles and securing your critical assets.
Assigner (CNA / source)：[email protected] Remove this filter
| CVE | Description | Max CVSS | EPSS % | Published | Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-3724 | If a TLS 1.3 client gets neither a PSK (pre shared key) extension nor a KSE (key share extension) when connecting to a malicious server, a default predictable buffer gets used for the IKM (Input Keying Material) value when generating the session master secret. Using a potentially known IKM value when generating the session master secret key compromises the key generated, allowing an eavesdropper to reconstruct it and potentially allowing access to or meddling with message contents in the session | 9.1 | 0.65% | 2023-07-17 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2023-6935 | wolfSSL SP Math All RSA implementation is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack, new variation of a timing Bleichenbacher style attack, when built with the following options to configure: --enable-all CFLAGS="-DWOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA" The define “WOLFSSL_STATIC_RSA” enables static RSA cipher suites, which is not recommended, and has been disabled by default since wolfSSL 3.6.6. Therefore the default build since 3.6.6, even with "--enable-all", is not vulnerable to the Marvin Attack. The vulnerability i | 5.9 | 0.54% | 2024-02-09 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2023-6936 | In wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6, if callback functions are enabled (via the WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS flag), then a malicious TLS client or network attacker can trigger a buffer over-read on the heap of 5 bytes (WOLFSSL_CALLBACKS is only intended for debugging). | 5.3 | 0.60% | 2024-02-20 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2023-6937 | wolfSSL prior to 5.6.6 did not check that messages in one (D)TLS record do not span key boundaries. As a result, it was possible to combine (D)TLS messages using different keys into one (D)TLS record. The most extreme edge case is that, in (D)TLS 1.3, it was possible that an unencrypted (D)TLS 1.3 record from the server containing first a ServerHello message and then the rest of the first server flight would be accepted by a wolfSSL client. In (D)TLS 1.3 the handshake is encrypted after the Serv | 5.3 | 0.51% | 2024-02-15 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-0901 | Remotely executed SEGV and out of bounds read allows malicious packet sender to crash or cause an out of bounds read via sending a malformed packet with the correct length. | 7.5 | 0.69% | 2024-03-25 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-1543 | The side-channel protected T-Table implementation in wolfSSL up to version 5.6.5 protects against a side-channel attacker with cache-line resolution. In a controlled environment such as Intel SGX, an attacker can gain a per instruction sub-cache-line resolution allowing them to break the cache-line-level protection. For details on the attack refer to: https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2024.i1.457-500 | 4.1 | 0.18% | 2024-08-29 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-1544 | Generating the ECDSA nonce k samples a random number r and then truncates this randomness with a modular reduction mod n where n is the order of the elliptic curve. Meaning k = r mod n. The division used during the reduction estimates a factor q_e by dividing the upper two digits (a digit having e.g. a size of 8 byte) of r by the upper digit of n and then decrements q_e in a loop until it has the correct size. Observing the number of times q_e is decremented through a control-flow reveali | 4.1 | 0.35% | 2024-08-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-1545 | Fault Injection vulnerability in RsaPrivateDecryption function in wolfssl/wolfcrypt/src/rsa.c in WolfSSL wolfssl5.6.6 on Linux/Windows allows remote attacker co-resides in the same system with a victim process to disclose information and escalate privileges via Rowhammer fault injection to the RsaKey structure. | 5.9 | 0.55% | 2024-08-29 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-2873 | A vulnerability was found in wolfSSH's server-side state machine before versions 1.4.17. A malicious client could create channels without first performing user authentication, resulting in unauthorized access. | 9.1 | 0.63% | 2024-03-25 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-2881 | Fault Injection vulnerability in wc_ed25519_sign_msg function in wolfssl/wolfcrypt/src/ed25519.c in WolfSSL wolfssl5.6.6 on Linux/Windows allows remote attacker co-resides in the same system with a victim process to disclose information and escalate privileges via Rowhammer fault injection to the ed25519_key structure. | 6.7 | 0.46% | 2024-08-29 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-5288 | An issue was discovered in wolfSSL before 5.7.0. A safe-error attack via Rowhammer, namely FAULT+PROBE, leads to ECDSA key disclosure. When WOLFSSL_CHECK_SIG_FAULTS is used in signing operations with private ECC keys, such as in server-side TLS connections, the connection is halted if any fault occurs. The success rate in a certain amount of connection requests can be processed via an advanced technique for ECDSA key recovery. | 5.1 | 0.42% | 2024-08-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-5814 | A malicious TLS1.2 server can force a TLS1.3 client with downgrade capability to use a ciphersuite that it did not agree to and achieve a successful connection. This is because, aside from the extensions, the client was skipping fully parsing the server hello. https://doi.org/10.46586/tches.v2024.i1.457-500 | 5.1 | 0.47% | 2024-08-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2024-5991 | In function MatchDomainName(), input param str is treated as a NULL terminated string despite being user provided and unchecked. Specifically, the function X509_check_host() takes in a pointer and length to check against, with no requirements that it be NULL terminated. If a caller was attempting to do a name check on a non-NULL terminated buffer, the code would read beyond the bounds of the input array until it found a NULL terminator.This issue affects wolfSSL: through 5.7.0. | 10.0 | 0.56% | 2024-08-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11624 | Potential stack buffer overwrite on the SFTP server side when receiving a malicious packet that has a handle size larger than the system handle or file descriptor size, but smaller than max handle size allowed. | 1.8 | 0.31% | 2025-10-21 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11625 | Improper host authentication vulnerability in wolfSSH version 1.4.20 and earlier clients that allows authentication bypass and leaking of clients credentials. | 9.4 | 0.38% | 2025-10-21 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11931 | Integer Underflow Leads to Out-of-Bounds Access in XChaCha20-Poly1305 Decrypt. This issue is hit specifically with a call to the function wc_XChaCha20Poly1305_Decrypt() which is not used with TLS connections, only from direct calls from an application. | 2.1 | 0.29% | 2025-11-21 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11932 | The server previously verified the TLS 1.3 PSK binder using a non-constant time method which could potentially leak information about the PSK binder | 2.3 | 0.26% | 2025-11-21 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11933 | Improper Input Validation in the TLS 1.3 CKS extension parsing in wolfSSL 5.8.2 and earlier on multiple platforms allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to potentially cause a denial-of-service via a crafted ClientHello message with duplicate CKS extensions. | 2.3 | 0.39% | 2025-11-21 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11934 | Improper input validation in the TLS 1.3 CertificateVerify signature algorithm negotiation in wolfSSL 5.8.2 and earlier on multiple platforms allows for downgrading the signature algorithm used. For example when a client sends ECDSA P521 as the supported signature algorithm the server previously could respond as ECDSA P256 being the accepted signature algorithm and the connection would continue with using ECDSA P256, if the client supports ECDSA P256. | 2.1 | 0.15% | 2025-11-21 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-11935 | With TLS 1.3 pre-shared key (PSK) a malicious or faulty server could ignore the request for PFS (perfect forward secrecy) and the client would continue on with the connection using PSK without PFS. This happened when a server responded to a ClientHello containing psk_dhe_ke without a key_share extension. The re-use of an authenticated PSK connection that on the clients side unexpectedly did not have PFS, reduces the security of the connection. | 6.3 | 0.19% | 2025-11-21 | 2026-06-17 |