Skip to content

CVE-2021-3711

Buffer Overflow: Is CVE-2021-3711 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

Community verdict: No field verdicts yet. Be the first practitioner to weigh in.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
9.8 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
88%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-120 · Buffer Overflow
CWE

High severity and high exploitation probability. Prioritise remediation.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Likely real & worth prioritising

High base severity and a high real-world exploitation probability both point to a genuine, actively targeted issue.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. This can lead to a buffer overflow when EVP_PKEY_decrypt() is called by the application a second time with a buffer that is too small. A malicious attacker who is able present SM2 content for decryption to an application could cause attacker chosen data to overflow the buffer by up to a maximum of 62 bytes altering the contents of other data held after the buffer, possibly changing application behaviour or causing the application to crash. The location of the buffer is application dependent but is typically heap allocated. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1l (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1k).

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2021-3711
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2021-3711/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2021-3711)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2021-3711"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2021-3711/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2021-3711"></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 verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

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.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-120 · Buffer Overflow.