How to fix the OpenSSL Critical vulnerability – OpenSSL 3.0.7  -Vulnerability Weekly special focus on application security

Critical Vulnerability affecting open source library OpenSSL - Application Security

Critical Vulnerability affecting open source library OpenSSL - Application Security
Critical Vulnerability affecting open source library OpenSSL – Application Security

On October 25, a critical vulnerability was announced for OpenSSL, with the fix and advisory on November 1st. This upcoming update will affect the application security and vulnerability management teams.

This is the second-rated critical vulnerability of the OpenSSL project

https://twitter.com/iamamoose/status/1584908434855628800 

The open SSL project team announced the release of a minor version to fix the vulnerability, but it will be available on the 1st of 2022. OpenSSL 3.0.7 will patch the critical vulnerability with the disclosure of the vulnerability.

Why a lot of attention and nervousness on this vulnerability? 

In 2014, the critical Heartbleed bug was announced and fixed; it became obvious how many systems depend on this vulnerability and how long it took for all the systems to be aligned to this new version. 

As OpenSSL is a widespread library, shown below is just a fraction of the direct usage: 

After log4j software composition analysis and infrastructure, the composition is ever more critical. 

The challenge with OpenSSL is that is nested in a lot of systems and a lot of libraries. 

So while you might be safe on an Operating system (not using openssl), the container that runs on it or the embedded software might expose and use

Controversial announcement

The patch for the critical vulnerability was announced on october 25th weeks before the official patch.

Tweet: https://twitter.com/iamamoose/status/1584908434855628800 

This allowed the team to gear up and prepare for fixes. There is a debate that this behaviour could trigger attackers to exploit the vulnerability https://twitter.com/__agwa/status/1584916997472751618 

System Affected

OpenSSL is included in many operating systems (Windows, macOS, various Linux distributions, etc.); client-side software; web and email server software (Apache, nginx, etc.); network appliances (Cisco, Fortinet, Juniper, etc.), industrial control systems, and so on.

Best defence

As this is an RCE, the best way to defend is to 

1 – create an inventory of all the systems that have open SSL installed and could have open SSL installed.

2 – fix as many instances as possible, prioritizing the one that can access easily

3 – for systems, repo that can’t be immediately fixed (vendors, SLA, maintenance), apply virtual patches on a WAF level to prevent specific strings from triggering the vulnerability. as there is no advisory in this space on the specific string, stay tuned for further updates

Challenges with those types of libraries

The challenge with open-source libraries, log4j, for example, is that a relatively small pool of people maintains them for free. This is quickly changing, with Google pledging large amounts of money to fix open-source libraries.

Key Point of this vulnerability:

  • The vulnerability seems to affect only OpenSSL 3.x releases, if you’re not using OpenSSL 3.x (ie, you’re still on OpenSSL 1.x across your org), you might be OK. Ensure your inventory is well maintained to determine whether you’re affected.
  • If you have systems which use OpenSSL 3.x that are Internet-facing or run critical functions (authn, authz), consider putting some mitigation in place ahead of this. Ex: if TLS termination occurs on a system which uses OpenSSL 3.x, consider delegating TLS termination to a system with a different TLS stack till you can patch.
  • If you have vendors who may use OpenSSL, now is the time to inquire whether they use 3.x releases and their errata schedule. Also list all the vendors that might have OpenSSL
use: openssl s_client -connect <domain name or IP>:<port>
  • Consider instituting a change freeze on/around November 1 to allow your teams the opportunity to build/test/release/patch as your highest priority if you’re using OpenSSL 3.x
  • OpenSSL is a library. Libraries can be linked to statically or dynamically. Consider how you would patch your systems in both cases.
  • * Any software upgrade, including dependent libraries, must go through testing. Complex distributed systems are hard. Make no assumptions about how a “trivial” patch may affect your systems.
  • * In case your systems use OpenSSL 3.x, how would you address static vs dynamically linked programs? What mitigation and patch strategies do you have?
  • What are your playbooks if a breach occurs prior to completing your mitigation or patch strategy? Work with your leadership team to understand your options for each scenario. Documenting scenarios and viable paths help to avoid rash decisions in stressful situations.
  • * During the log4j firefight, we saw numerous security commenters jump on the vulnerability, spreading misinformation and asking to remove libraries. 
  • This can cause a lot more pain, and removing a component can cause an enormous ripple effect. 
  • Fixing a vulnerability in code or on a system should always be staged, tested and verified with proper regression testing. Allow enough time for this implementing mitigating countermeasures like virtual patching.

Best of luck to all the security team and development team working on this

Previous Issues of vulnerability Weekly





Francesco is an internationally renowned public speaker, with multiple interviews in high-profile publications (eg. Forbes), and an author of numerous books and articles, who utilises his platform to evangelize the importance of Cloud security and cutting-edge technologies on a global scale.

Discuss this blog with our community on Slack

Join our AppSec Phoenix community on Slack to discuss this blog and other news with our professional security team

From our Blog

We don’t need more tools. We need a new way of thinking. Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) promises the world, but most teams crumble under tool sprawl, silos, and endless ticket queues. That’s why I built IronClad™ — a brutally simple, brutally effective operating model that fuses ASPM with decentralized ownership and ruthless clarity. This isn’t theory. It’s how security teams can actually win: small empowered squads, zero ambiguity, and mission-first remediation. If you’re tired of drowning in dashboards and ready to rethink how your teams build, secure, and scale, this is the blueprint. 👉 Read how ASPM + IronClad™ flips the script on vulnerability management.
Phil Moroni
As cyber threats become increasingly sophisticated, the need for a more proactive and comprehensive approach to vulnerability management is undeniable. A threat-centric methodology, when combined with advanced tools like Agentic AI and Application Security Posture Management (ASPM), offers organizations the ability to predict and mitigate vulnerabilities before they are exploited by threat actors. This article delves into how leveraging threat intelligence, exposure and reachability analysis, and contextual risk assessments can help organizations stay ahead of cyber threats, specifically focusing on high-risk vulnerabilities like remote code execution (RCE) and memory corruption. Through case studies like Citrix ADC and MOVEit Transfer, the article highlights the growing trend of zero-day exploits and emphasizes the importance of a proactive, data-driven security strategy. In a world where vulnerabilities are constantly targeted, adopting a threat-centric approach is not just a best practice—it’s essential to ensuring long-term security. For startups, the focus is clear—establish visibility and ensure core security practices are in place. Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) tools provide a straightforward, automated approach to detecting vulnerabilities and enforcing policies. These solutions help reduce risk quickly without overburdening small security teams. Mature organizations, on the other hand, are tackling a different set of problems. With the sheer number of vulnerabilities and an increasingly complicated threat landscape, enterprises need to fine-tune their approach. The goal shifts toward intelligent remediation, leveraging real-time threat intelligence and advanced risk prioritization. ASPM tools at this stage do more than just detect vulnerabilities—they provide context, enable proactive decision-making, and streamline the entire remediation process. The emergence of AI-assisted code generation has further complicated security in both environments. These tools, while speeding up development, are often responsible for introducing new vulnerabilities into applications at a faster pace than traditional methods. The challenge is clear: AI-generated code can hide flaws that are difficult to catch in the rush of innovation. Both startups and enterprises need to adjust their security posture to account for these new risks. ASPM platforms, like Phoenix Security, provide automated scanning of code before it hits production, ensuring that flaws don’t make it past the first line of defense. Meanwhile, organizations are also grappling with the backlog crisis in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). A staggering number of CVEs remain unprocessed, leaving many businesses with limited data on which to base their patching decisions. While these delays leave companies vulnerable, Phoenix Security steps in by cross-referencing CVE data with known exploits and live threat intelligence, helping organizations stay ahead despite the lag in official vulnerability reporting. Whether just starting their security program or managing a complex infrastructure, organizations need a toolset that adapts with them. Phoenix Security enables businesses of any size to prioritize vulnerabilities based on actual risk, not just theoretical impact, helping security teams navigate the evolving threat landscape with speed and accuracy.
Francesco Cipollone
The journey of securing an organization’s application landscape varies dramatically, depending on where a company stands in its maturity. Early-stage startups with small security teams face challenges not only with vulnerabilities but also with scaling their security processes in line with their growth. On the flip side, established enterprises struggle with managing complex environments, prioritizing remediation, and dealing with vast amounts of vulnerabilities while staying ahead of sophisticated threats. For startups, the focus is clear—establish visibility and ensure core security practices are in place. Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) tools provide a straightforward, automated approach to detecting vulnerabilities and enforcing policies. These solutions help reduce risk quickly without overburdening small security teams. Mature organizations, on the other hand, are tackling a different set of problems. With the sheer number of vulnerabilities and an increasingly complicated threat landscape, enterprises need to fine-tune their approach. The goal shifts toward intelligent remediation, leveraging real-time threat intelligence and advanced risk prioritization. ASPM tools at this stage do more than just detect vulnerabilities—they provide context, enable proactive decision-making, and streamline the entire remediation process. The emergence of AI-assisted code generation has further complicated security in both environments. These tools, while speeding up development, are often responsible for introducing new vulnerabilities into applications at a faster pace than traditional methods. The challenge is clear: AI-generated code can hide flaws that are difficult to catch in the rush of innovation. Both startups and enterprises need to adjust their security posture to account for these new risks. ASPM platforms, like Phoenix Security, provide automated scanning of code before it hits production, ensuring that flaws don’t make it past the first line of defense. Meanwhile, organizations are also grappling with the backlog crisis in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). A staggering number of CVEs remain unprocessed, leaving many businesses with limited data on which to base their patching decisions. While these delays leave companies vulnerable, Phoenix Security steps in by cross-referencing CVE data with known exploits and live threat intelligence, helping organizations stay ahead despite the lag in official vulnerability reporting. Whether just starting their security program or managing a complex infrastructure, organizations need a toolset that adapts with them. Phoenix Security enables businesses of any size to prioritize vulnerabilities based on actual risk, not just theoretical impact, helping security teams navigate the evolving threat landscape with speed and accuracy.
Francesco Cipollone
The cybersecurity world is reeling as MITRE’s funding for the CVE and NVD systems expires, disrupting the backbone of global vulnerability management. As traditional sources like the National Vulnerability Database collapse under funding cuts and submission backlogs, security teams face delays, incomplete data, and loss of automation in remediation pipelines. This isn’t just a data problem—it’s a structural crisis for application security and vulnerability correlation. In this landscape of uncertainty, Phoenix Security’s ASPM platform steps up with a code-to-cloud correlation engine that doesn’t depend on outdated data workflows. By connecting code-level insights (including tools like Semgrep) to runtime and cloud environments, Phoenix enables faster, context-aware vulnerability remediation—even as NVD and CVE pipelines deteriorate. This article dives into the implications of the CVE shutdown and how Phoenix Security is helping security and development teams transition to a resilient, correlation-first approach to cybersecurity.
Francesco Cipollone
Learn how to predict ransomware risks and vulnerability exploitation using a threat-centric approach. Explore data-driven insights, verified exploit trends, and methods for assessing the likelihood of attacks with key references to CISA KEV, EPSS, and Phoenix Security’s 4D Risk Formula.
Francesco Cipollone
Remote Code Execution flaws continue to undermine Kubernetes ingress integrity. IngressNightmare (CVE-2025-1097, CVE-2025-1098, CVE-2025-24514, CVE-2025-1974) showcases severe threat vectors in NGINX-based proxies, leading to cluster-wide exposure. ASPM, robust remediation tactics, and strong application security solutions—like Phoenix Security—mitigate these vulnerabilities before ransomware groups exploit them.
Francesco Cipollone
Derek

Derek Fisher

Head of product security at a global fintech

Derek Fisher – Head of product security at a global fintech. Speaker, instructor, and author in application security.

Derek is an award winning author of a children’s book series in cybersecurity as well as the author of “The Application Security Handbook.” He is a university instructor at Temple University where he teaches software development security to undergraduate and graduate students. He is a speaker on topics in the cybersecurity space and has led teams, large and small, at organizations in the healthcare and financial industries. He has built and matured information security teams as well as implemented organizational information security strategies to reduce the organizations risk.

Derek got his start in the hardware engineering space where he learned about designing circuits and building assemblies for commercial and military applications. He later pursued a computer science degree in order to advance a career in software development. This is where Derek was introduced to cybersecurity and soon caught the bug. He found a mentor to help him grow in cybersecurity and then pursued a graduate degree in the subject.

Since then Derek has worked in the product security space as an architect and leader. He has led teams to deliver more secure software in organizations from multiple industries. His focus has been to raise the security awareness of the engineering organization while maintaining a practice of secure code development, delivery, and operations.

In his role, Jeevan handles a range of tasks, from architecting security solutions to collaborating with Engineering Leadership to address security vulnerabilities at scale and embed security into the fabric of the organization.

Jeevan Singh

Jeevan Singh

Founder of Manicode Security

Jeevan Singh is the Director of Security Engineering at Rippling, with a background spanning various Engineering and Security leadership roles over the course of his career. He’s dedicated to the integration of security practices into software development, working to create a security-aware culture within organizations and imparting security best practices to the team.
In his role, Jeevan handles a range of tasks, from architecting security solutions to collaborating with Engineering Leadership to address security vulnerabilities at scale and embed security into the fabric of the organization.

James

James Berthoty

Founder of Latio Tech

James Berthoty has over ten years of experience across product and security domains. He founded Latio Tech to help companies find the right security tools for their needs without vendor bias.

christophe

Christophe Parisel

Senior Cloud Security Architect

Senior Cloud Security Architect

Chris

Chris Romeo

Co-Founder
Security Journey

Chris Romeo is a leading voice and thinker in application security, threat modeling, and security champions and the CEO of Devici and General Partner at Kerr Ventures. Chris hosts the award-winning “Application Security Podcast,” “The Security Table,” and “The Threat Modeling Podcast” and is a highly rated industry speaker and trainer, featured at the RSA Conference, the AppSec Village @ DefCon, OWASP Global AppSec, ISC2 Security Congress, InfoSec World and All Day DevOps. Chris founded Security Journey, a security education company, leading to an exit in 2022. Chris was the Chief Security Advocate at Cisco, spreading security knowledge through education and champion programs. Chris has twenty-six years of security experience, holding positions across the gamut, including application security, security engineering, incident response, and various Executive roles. Chris holds the CISSP and CSSLP certifications.

jim

Jim Manico

Founder of Manicode Security

Jim Manico is the founder of Manicode Security, where he trains software developers on secure coding and security engineering. Jim is also the founder of Brakeman Security, Inc. and an investor/advisor for Signal Sciences. He is the author of Iron-Clad Java: Building Secure Web Applications (McGraw-Hill), a frequent speaker on secure software practices, and a member of the JavaOne Rockstar speaker community. Jim is also a volunteer for and former board member of the OWASP foundation.

Join our Mailing list!

Get all the latest news, exclusive deals, and feature updates.

The IKIGAI concept