OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment

OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment

OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment

OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restr ...

** DISPUTED ** OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment.