CVE-2019-1543
No exploitation reported by the sources we read.
- Published2019-03-06
- WeaknessCWE-327 · CWE-330
Am I affected?
Debian, Ubuntu or Red Hat sometimes backport a fix without changing the upstream version number: such a version reads « to verify », never « affected ».With a domain, we read the version its public headers and pages expose. A distribution build can carry the fix under an older number.
Description
ChaCha20-Poly1305 is an AEAD cipher, and requires a unique nonce input for every encryption operation. RFC 7539 specifies that the nonce value (IV) should be 96 bits (12 bytes). OpenSSL allows a variable nonce length and front pads the nonce with 0 bytes if it is less than 12 bytes. However it also incorrectly allows a nonce to be set of up to 16 bytes. In this case only the last 12 bytes are significant and any additional leading bytes are ignored. It is a requirement of using this cipher that nonce values are unique. Messages encrypted using a reused nonce value are susceptible to serious confidentiality and integrity attacks. If an application changes the default nonce length to be longer than 12 bytes and then makes a change to the leading bytes of the nonce expecting the new value to be a new unique nonce then such an application could inadvertently encrypt messages with a reused nonce. Additionally the ignored bytes in a long nonce are not covered by the integrity guarantee of this cipher. Any application that relies on the integrity of these ignored leading bytes of a long nonce may be further affected. Any OpenSSL internal use of this cipher, including in SSL/TLS, is safe because no such use sets such a long nonce value. However user applications that use this cipher directly and set a non-default nonce length to be longer than 12 bytes may be vulnerable. OpenSSL versions 1.1.1 and 1.1.0 are affected by this issue. Due to the limited scope of affected deployments this has been assessed as low severity and therefore we are not creating new releases at this time. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1c (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1b). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0k (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0j).
Timeline
dates in UTC- 2019-03-0621:29CVE publishedNVD
Observed activity
isMalicious corpus · updated 2026-10-23 18:48 UTCBlock these indicators
- Firewall list (EDL, text): https://api.ismalicious.com/edl/cve/CVE-2019-1543?format=txt
- CSV export: https://api.ismalicious.com/edl/cve/CVE-2019-1543?format=csv
- TAXII collection of exploited CVEs
- The EDL and CSV take an API key on the Pro plan.
Versions per branch
NVD| Branch | Affected | Fixed in | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | ≥ 1.1.0, ≤ 1.1.0j | no fix published | NVD |
| 1.1 | ≥ 1.1.1, ≤ 1.1.1b | no fix published | NVD |
as publishedRanges as NVD and OSV publish them; a distribution’s build can be fixed under an older number.
Fix
Advisories and patches
- www.openssl.orgVendor Advisory
Detection
- Nuclei template
- none so far ProjectDiscovery
- Exploit-DB
- no entry Exploit-DB
- Proof-of-concept repositories
- none listed PoC-in-GitHub
Sources
- NVDCVSS 3.07.4read 2026-10-23
- NVDCVSS 2.05.8read 2026-10-23
- NVDweakness (CWE)CWE-327, CWE-330read 2026-10-23
- FIRST EPSSEPSS score5.7 %2026-10-22
Technical details
- CVSS v3 Vector
- CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Published
- 2019-03-06
- Last Modified
- 2026-06-17
- NVD status
- Modified
Frequently asked questions
What is CVE-2019-1543?
Is CVE-2019-1543 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2019-1543?
Hear about the next vulnerability in your software
Surveillance reads the versions in your stack — a domain, a lockfile or a list — checks each CVE against the ranges its sources publish, and alerts you when one you run is exploited or enters CISA KEV. A version it cannot read stays « version not verified ».
No credit card required · No monthly cap on website lookups · 250 API requests/month
Go further
- Following what attackers exploit right now? The CISA KEV additions of the month, with their patch deadlines.
- Running this software? Vulnerability monitoring alerts you to new vulnerabilities in your products.
Related vulnerabilities
Same product first, then the same vendor advisory and the same publication week.