CVE-2014-0160: Heartbleed
Out-of-bounds Read: Is CVE-2014-0160 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Confirmed exploited in the wild. Patch this first, regardless of the base score.
public exploits
links to sources — we don’t host codeA working exploit is publicly available from a maintained source. Treat this as higher urgency and verify your exposure.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real — exploited in the wild
CISA confirms active exploitation. Treat scanner hits as true positives unless your specific version or config is unaffected.
Based on CISA KEV
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
The (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1g do not properly handle Heartbeat Extension packets, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory via crafted packets that trigger a buffer over-read, as demonstrated by reading private keys, related to d1_both.c and t1_lib.c, aka the Heartbleed bug.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2014-0160)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2014-0160"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2014-0160/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2014-0160"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: TruePositive's read from public sources is Real & exploitable — a starting point, not a community verdict.
No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
- 0
Old bug, but still dangerous where it exists. OpenSSL versions 1.0.1 to 1.0.1f let a remote attacker (no login needed) read up to 64KB of server memory in one request, and they can repeat it again and again. That memory often contains private TLS keys, session cookies, passwords, and other users' data. It is not remote code execution, but if the private key leaks, your whole TLS is compromised.
The part most people miss is not detection. It is that patching alone is not enough. If a server was vulnerable and exposed to the internet, assume the private key already leaked. You must reissue and revoke the certificate, and rotate every secret that could have been in memory.
On modern systems, a new Heartbleed alert is usually one of two things. Either a very old, forgotten server (patch it now), or a false positive from version matching against a backported or statically-linked OpenSSL. Confirm with an active test (a safe Heartbleed checker) before you panic. But if it confirms, treat it as critical.
Commonly flagged by: Nessus, Qualys, OpenVAS.
- 0
Upgrade OpenSSL to 1.0.1g or later (or rebuild with
-DOPENSSL_NO_HEARTBEATS). Then do the step everyone forgets: revoke and reissue the server certificate, because the private key is assumed leaked. Also rotate session tokens, API keys, and passwords that could have been in memory during the exposure. Force users to log in again.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read.
- CVE-2025-5777HIGH 7.5KEVEPSS 100%
Insufficient input validation leading to memory overread when the NetScaler is configured as a Gateway (VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, RDP Proxy) OR AAA virtual server
- CVE-2026-3055CRIT 9.8KEVEPSS 84%
Insufficient input validation in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway when configured as a SAML IDP leading to memory overread
- CVE-2016-1646HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 48%
The Array.prototype.concat implementation in builtins.cc in Google V8, as used in Google Chrome before 49.0.2623.108, does not properly consider element data types, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted JavaScript code.
- CVE-2023-36424HIGH 7.8KEVEPSS 12%
Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-11645HIGH 8.8KEVEPSS 2%
Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.103 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside a sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
- CVE-2026-35217MED 6.5Disputed
NanoMQ contains a protocol-semantics flaw in its MQTT v5 `SUBSCRIBE` handling: if a subscription entry is missing the final 1-byte `Subscription Options` field, the broker may still accept the malformed packet and install the subscription into internal broker state. Under a specific packet-length construction, the same parser flaw also causes a 1-byte out-of-bounds read that crosses the real heap allocation boundary and is detected by ASAN as a `heap-buffer-overflow`. If the consumed byte happens to look acceptable, NanoMQ may continue and append the malformed subscription entry into its internal `subinfol` state. In that case, a `SUBSCRIBE` packet that should be rejected by MQTT rules is instead treated as a successful subscription. Whether ASAN reports the bug does not depend on MQTT's logical `remain` boundary; it depends on whether the read crosses the real heap allocation boundary of the underlying message buffer. In other words, these are not two unrelated issues. They are two manifestations of the same parsing defect: by default, it appears as a semantic vulnerability, and under suitable input conditions, it also becomes a verifiable out-of-bounds read vulnerability.