聚合 NVD、CVE 及多源情資，深度解析 RCE 等高危風險。系統整合 CVSS 與 EPSS 模型，動態追蹤 Exploit 資源與 PoC 公開狀態，研判可利用性。結合官方修補與修復方案，優化漏洞管理優先級，縮短回應週期，保障資產安全。
指派機構（CNA / 來源）：[email protected] 移除此篩選
| CVE | 描述 | 最高 CVSS | EPSS % | 公開時間 | 更新時間 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-7053 | In OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0c, applications parsing invalid CMS structures can crash with a NULL pointer dereference. This is caused by a bug in the handling of the ASN.1 CHOICE type in OpenSSL 1.1.0 which can result in a NULL value being passed to the structure callback if an attempt is made to free certain invalid encodings. Only CHOICE structures using a callback which do not handle NULL value are affected. | 7.5 | 21.68% | 2017-05-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2016-7054 | In OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0c, TLS connections using *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 ciphersuites are susceptible to a DoS attack by corrupting larger payloads. This can result in an OpenSSL crash. This issue is not considered to be exploitable beyond a DoS. | 7.5 | 32.39% | 2017-05-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3730 | In OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d, if a malicious server supplies bad parameters for a DHE or ECDHE key exchange then this can result in the client attempting to dereference a NULL pointer leading to a client crash. This could be exploited in a Denial of Service attack. | 7.5 | 55.29% | 2017-05-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3731 | If an SSL/TLS server or client is running on a 32-bit host, and a specific cipher is being used, then a truncated packet can cause that server or client to perform an out-of-bounds read, usually resulting in a crash. For OpenSSL 1.1.0, the crash can be triggered when using CHACHA20/POLY1305; users should upgrade to 1.1.0d. For Openssl 1.0.2, the crash can be triggered when using RC4-MD5; users who have not disabled that algorithm should update to 1.0.2k. | 7.5 | 57.59% | 2017-05-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3732 | There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 before 1.0.2k and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of res | 5.9 | 15.93% | 2017-05-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3733 | During a renegotiation handshake if the Encrypt-Then-Mac extension is negotiated where it was not in the original handshake (or vice-versa) then this can cause OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0e to crash (dependent on ciphersuite). Both clients and servers are affected. | 7.5 | 12.87% | 2017-05-04 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3734 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2017-07-21 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-3735 | While parsing an IPAddressFamily extension in an X.509 certificate, it is possible to do a one-byte overread. This would result in an incorrect text display of the certificate. This bug has been present since 2006 and is present in all versions of OpenSSL before 1.0.2m and 1.1.0g. | 5.3 | 17.70% | 2017-08-28 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3736 | There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL before 1.0.2m and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0g. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources | 6.5 | 10.13% | 2017-11-02 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3737 | OpenSSL 1.0.2 (starting from version 1.0.2b) introduced an "error state" mechanism. The intent was that if a fatal error occurred during a handshake then OpenSSL would move into the error state and would immediately fail if you attempted to continue the handshake. This works as designed for the explicit handshake functions (SSL_do_handshake(), SSL_accept() and SSL_connect()), however due to a bug it does not work correctly if SSL_read() or SSL_write() is called directly. In that scenario, if the | 5.9 | 78.67% | 2017-12-07 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-3738 | There is an overflow bug in the AVX2 Montgomery multiplication procedure used in exponentiation with 1024-bit moduli. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH1024 are considered just feasible, because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack w | 5.9 | 13.41% | 2017-12-07 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2017-17070 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17071 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17072 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17073 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17074 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17075 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17076 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17077 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2017-17078 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none | 無 | 0.27% | 2018-01-29 | 2023-11-06 |