VulnerabilityPublished 5 Feb 2024Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-50782: Timing Side Channel

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 65% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Feb 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their use of the python-cryptography package, specifically checking for version 3.2 and TLS configurations employing RSA key exchanges. The primary mitigation is to upgrade python-cryptography to the latest patched version once available, as vendors typically address timing side-channel vulnerabilities with constant-time cryptographic implementations. Until patches are applied, organizations should consider disabling RSA key exchange in TLS configurations and prefer ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DHE or ECDHE) key exchanges, which are not affected by this vulnerability and provide forward secrecy. Network monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual TLS traffic patterns or attempts to capture encrypted sessions. Additionally, organizations should review their TLS termination points and cryptographic libraries in use, ensuring they follow best practices for side-channel resistance. For critical systems, implementing network segmentation and limiting exposure of TLS servers to untrusted networks can reduce attack surface. Finally, maintain up-to-date threat intelligence and vendor advisories to respond quickly when patches are released.

Description

A flaw was found in the python-cryptography package. This issue may allow a remote attacker to decrypt captured messages in TLS servers that use RSA key exchanges, which may lead to exposure of confidential or sensitive data.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-50782 can be significant, especially for those relying on python-cryptography 3.2 in their TLS server implementations using RSA key exchanges. Confidential data transmitted over TLS could be decrypted by attackers who have captured network traffic, leading to exposure of sensitive information such as credentials, personal data, or proprietary communications. This breach of confidentiality could result in regulatory non-compliance under GDPR, financial losses, reputational damage, and potential legal consequences. Critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and telecommunications that depend on secure TLS communications are particularly at risk. The vulnerability does not affect message integrity or availability, so the threat is focused on data leakage rather than service disruption. Since no authentication or user interaction is required, attackers can exploit this remotely, increasing the risk of widespread attacks if the vulnerability is not mitigated promptly. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests a window for proactive defense, but also the need for vigilance as attackers may develop exploits.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…