LowCVE-2015-4000

    Oracle JDK: security vulnerability (CVE-2015-4000)

    Published Sources: CVE.org, SUSE

    What is affected, what to do

    The TLS protocol 1.2 and earlier, when a DHE_EXPORT ciphersuite is enabled on a server but not on a client, does not properly convey a DHE_EXPORT choice, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cipher-downgrade attacks by rewriting a ClientHello with DHE replaced by DHE_EXPORT and then rewriting a ServerHello with DHE_EXPORT replaced by DHE, aka the "Logjam" issue.

    The available sources name no fixed version. Check the vendor guidance in the references below.

    Affected
    • OpenSSL lte 1.0.1..1.0.1m
    • OpenSSL lte 1.0.2..1.0.2a
    • Canonical Ubuntu Linux eq 12.04..12.04
    • Canonical Ubuntu Linux eq 14.04..14.04
    • Canonical Ubuntu Linux eq 14.10..14.10
    • Canonical Ubuntu Linux eq 15.04..15.04
    • OpenSSL lte *..1.0.1m
    • HP-UX eq b.11.31..b.11.31
    • IBM Content Manager eq 8.5..8.5
    • Oracle JRockit eq r28.3.6..r28.3.6
    • Debian Linux eq 7.0..7.0
    • Debian Linux eq 8.0..8.0
    • Oracle JDK eq 1.6.0..1.6.0
    • Oracle JDK eq 1.7.0..1.7.0
    • Oracle JDK eq 1.8.0..1.8.0
    • Oracle JRE eq 1.6.0..1.6.0
    • Oracle JRE eq 1.7.0..1.7.0
    • Oracle JRE eq 1.8.0..1.8.0
    • SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop eq 12..12
    • SUSE Linux Enterprise Server eq 11.0..11.0
    • SUSE Linux Enterprise Software Development Kit (SDK) eq 12..12
    • SUSE Linux Enterprise Server eq 12..12
    • Apple iPhone OS lte *..8.3
    • Apple Mac OS X lte *..10.10.3
    • Mozilla Network Security Services eq 3.19..3.19
    • Oracle Sparc-OPL Service Processor lte *..1121
    • Mozilla Firefox eq 38.1.0..38.1.0
    • Mozilla Firefox eq 39.0..39.0
    • Mozilla Firefox ESR eq 31.8..31.8
    • Mozilla Seamonkey eq 2.35..2.35
    • Mozilla Thunderbird eq 31.8..31.8
    • Mozilla Thunderbird eq 38.1..38.1
    • Mozilla Firefox OS eq 2.2..2.2

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    3.7

    Priority

    XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.

    Source: NVD, CVSS v3

    3.7

    CVSS v3

    Severity Low on the scale from 0 to 10.

    Source: CVE.org, SUSE

    99.86 %

    EPSS score

    High — model estimates ≥ 50% chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days.

    Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 99.96

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Low
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    98.44 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    XIEM Effective CVSS

    XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.

    Read in glossary
    3.7 Methodology
    CVSS v3

    CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.

    Read in glossary
    3.7
    EPSS score

    The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.

    Read in glossary
    99.86 %
    High — model estimates ≥ 50% chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days.
    EPSS percentile

    The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.

    Read in glossary
    99.96
    Critical — this CVE ranks in the top fifth of all CVEs scored today (rank ≥ 80%).
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published
    CISA assessment (SSVC)
    Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
    Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 27 May 2026
    CWE

    CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.

    Read in glossary
    CWE-295

    Detection rules

    No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    Description

    The TLS protocol 1.2 and earlier, when a DHE_EXPORT ciphersuite is enabled on a server but not on a client, does not properly convey a DHE_EXPORT choice, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cipher-downgrade attacks by rewriting a ClientHello with DHE replaced by DHE_EXPORT and then rewriting a ServerHello with DHE_EXPORT replaced by DHE, aka the "Logjam" issue.

    Source: NVD (NIST), cvelistv5, suse_csaf

    Affected products

    The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.

    Affected products
    Affected versionsFixed in
    applesafari
    • —
    • —
    googlechrome
    • —
    • —
    ibmcontent_manager
    • 8.5
    • —
    microsoftinternet_explorer
    • —
    • —
    mozillafirefox
    • 38.1.0
    • —
    • 39.0
    • —
    • —
    • —
    mozillafirefox_esr
    • 31.8
    • —
    mozillanetwork_security_services
    • 3.19
    • —
    mozillaseamonkey
    • 2.35
    • —
    mozillathunderbird
    • 31.8
    • 38.1
    • —
    • —
    opensslopenssl
    • 1.0.2 – ≤ 1.0.2a
    • ≤ 1.0.1m
    • 1.0.1 – ≤ 1.0.1m
    • —
    • —
    • —
    operaopera_browser
    • —
    • —
    oraclejdk
    • 1.6.0
    • 1.8.0
    • 1.7.0
    • —
    • —
    • —
    oraclejre
    • 1.6.0
    • 1.8.0
    • 1.7.0
    • —
    • —
    • —
    oraclejrockit
    • r28.3.6
    • —
    oraclesparc-opl_service_processor
    • ≤ 1121
    • —

    Vendors and products

    Affected operating systems

    Affected operating systems
    Linuxdebiandebian_linux7.0
    Linuxdebiandebian_linux8.0
    Linuxsuselinux_enterprise_desktop12
    Linuxsuselinux_enterprise_server11.0
    Linuxsuselinux_enterprise_software_development_kit12
    Linuxsusesuse_linux_enterprise_server12
    Linuxcanonicalubuntu_linux12.04
    Linuxcanonicalubuntu_linux14.04
    Linuxcanonicalubuntu_linux14.10
    Linuxcanonicalubuntu_linux15.04
    macOSapplemac_os_x—
    Mobileappleiphone_os—
    Othermozillafirefox_os2.2
    Otherhphp-uxb.11.31

    Weakness classes (CWE)

    • CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation

      Base

      The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

      Entry at MITRE CWE-295

    References & sources

    • lists.opensuse.orgSUSE-SU-2015:1184Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • lists.opensuse.orgSUSE-SU-2015:1177Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • marc.infoSSRT102180Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • rhn.redhat.comRHSA-2015:1243Vendor advisory, Third-party advisory
    • lists.opensuse.orgopenSUSE-SU-2015:1229Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • securitytracker.com1033208Vulnerability database, Third-party advisory, Vulnerability database
    • securitytracker.com1032637Vulnerability database, Third-party advisory, Vulnerability database
    • marc.infoHPSBGN03404Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • debian.orgDSA-3688Vendor advisory, Third-party advisory
    • debian.orgDSA-3287Vendor advisory, Third-party advisory
    • marc.infoHPSBUX03512Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • securitytracker.com1032865Vulnerability database, Third-party advisory, Vulnerability database
    • marc.infoHPSBGN03351Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • lists.opensuse.orgSUSE-SU-2015:1268Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • lists.opensuse.orgSUSE-SU-2015:1150Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • securitytracker.com1034728Vulnerability database, Third-party advisory, Vulnerability database
    • lists.opensuse.orgSUSE-SU-2015:1183Vendor advisory, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    • securitytracker.com1032656Vulnerability database, Third-party advisory, Vulnerability database
    • rhn.redhat.comRHSA-2016:2056Vendor advisory, Third-party advisory
    • openwall.com[oss-security] 20150520 CVE-2015-4000 - TLS does not properly convey server's ciphersuite choiceMailing list, Mailing list, Third-party advisory
    Embed badge

    Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.

    Badge preview for CVE-2015-4000
    <a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2015-4000"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2015-4000.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2015-4000 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>