{"answers":{"affected":"It affects 1 product.","exploited":"There is no known exploitation of CVE-2023-0466 in the wild and no public exploit code.","fix":"Change a configuration setting.","what":"CVE-2023-0466 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Openssl Openssl, published on 28 Mar 2023. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim."},"fix_prompt":"Check this codebase for CVE-2023-0466 and fix it if it is affected.\n\nWhat it is: CVE-2023-0466 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Openssl Openssl, published on 28 Mar 2023. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.\nExploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2023-0466 in the wild and no public exploit code.\n\nAffected product: Openssl Openssl. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.\n\nTask:\n1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.\n2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.\n3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.\n4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.\n5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.\n\nReference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-0466/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-0466/index.md)","id":"CVE-2023-0466","markdown":"https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-0466/index.md","name":"CVE-2023-0466","record":{"aliases":["ALPINE-CVE-2023-0466","AZL-25936","AZL-47700","DEBIAN-CVE-2023-0466","GHSA-pxvj-4wx4-gv6w","JLSEC-2026-237","UBUNTU-CVE-2023-0466"],"analysis":{"component_type":"library","fix_type":"configuration_change","impacts":["security_bypass"],"network_reachable":"yes","non_default_config":true,"product_category":"OpenSSL library","requires_auth":"none","summary":"Applications relying on implicit policy checks in OpenSSL may accept invalid certificates, requiring explicit configuration to enforce policy verification.","user_interaction":"not_required","vuln_class":"security_feature_bypass"},"analysis_generated_by":"qwen3.8-flash-next","assigner":"openssl","cpe":[{"product":"openssl","vendor":"openssl"}],"cvss":{"score":5.3,"severity":"medium","source":"cisa-adp","vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N","version":"3.1"},"cwes":[{"id":"CWE-295","name":"Improper Certificate Validation"}],"description":"The function X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() is documented to\nimplicitly enable the certificate policy check when doing certificate\nverification. However the implementation of the function does not\nenable the check which allows certificates with invalid or incorrect\npolicies to pass the certificate verification.\n\nAs suddenly enabling the policy check could break existing deployments it was\ndecided to keep the existing behavior of the X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy()\nfunction.\n\nInstead the applications that require OpenSSL to perform certificate\npolicy check need to use X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies() or explicitly\nenable the policy check by calling X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags() with\nthe X509_V_FLAG_POLICY_CHECK flag argument.\n\nCertificate policy checks are disabled by default in OpenSSL and are not\ncommonly used by applications.","ecosystems":[],"exploits":{"exploitdb":0,"first_seen":null,"github_poc":0,"max_poc_stars":null,"metasploit":0,"nuclei":0,"refs":[],"tier":"none_known"},"has_fix":true,"headline":"Certificate policy check not enabled","id":"CVE-2023-0466","indexable":true,"kev":null,"kind":"cve","links":{"ecosystem":null,"product":"openssl:openssl","products":["openssl:openssl"],"type":"security_feature_bypass","year":"2023"},"n_packages":0,"n_references":10,"next":{"headline":"WP Dark Mode \u003c 4.0.8 - Subscriber+ Local File Inclusion","id":"CVE-2023-0467"},"packages":[],"prev":{"headline":"Invalid certificate policies in leaf certificates are silently ignored","id":"CVE-2023-0465"},"products":["OpenSSL"],"published":"2023-03-28","related":[{"cvss_score":10,"headline":"Null dereference in n/a","id":"CVE-2009-3245","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2010-03-05"},{"cvss_score":10,"headline":"Memory corruption in n/a","id":"CVE-2006-3738","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2006-09-28"},{"cvss_score":9.8,"headline":"Untrusted Sender DN Used as Format String in CMP Response Validation","id":"CVE-2026-63073","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2026-08-25"},{"cvss_score":9.8,"headline":"Use after free in n/a","id":"CVE-2016-6309","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2016-09-26"},{"cvss_score":9.8,"headline":"Integer overflow in n/a","id":"CVE-2016-0799","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2016-03-03"},{"cvss_score":9.8,"headline":"Memory corruption in n/a","id":"CVE-2016-2842","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2016-03-03"},{"cvss_score":9.8,"headline":"Memory corruption in n/a","id":"CVE-2003-0545","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2003-10-01"}],"sources":[{"class":"attribution","licence":"CVE Terms of Use (MITRE)","name":"CVE List","prefix":"CVE"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"US public information, NVD API terms","name":"NVD"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"CWE Terms of Use","name":"CWE (MITRE)"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"FIRST CVSS licence","name":"CVSS (FIRST)"}],"ssvc":{"automatable":"no","exploitation":"none","technical_impact":"partial"},"state":"PUBLISHED","updated":"2026-10-14","vendors":["OpenSSL"]},"summary":"Applications relying on implicit policy checks in OpenSSL may accept invalid certificates, requiring explicit configuration to enforce policy verification.","url":"https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2023-0466/"}