CVE-2024-2511 OpenSSL TLSv1.3 Bug and Azure Linux Attestation Guide

CVE‑2024‑2511 exposed a surprising — and at first glance narrowly scoped — weakness in OpenSSL’s TLSv1.3 session handling: certain non‑default server configurations can cause the session cache to stop flushing and grow without bound, allowing a remote actor to force resource exhaustion and a Denial‑of‑Service. Microsoft’s public advisory singled out Azure Linux as a distribution that “includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected,” and that short statement has provoked a recurring question in enterprise security teams: is Azure Linux the only Microsoft product that ships the vulnerable OpenSSL code, or should defenders assume broader exposure across Microsoft artifacts? The short, precise answer is: Microsoft has attested Azure Linux as a confirmed carrier, but that attestation is product‑scoped — it is not proof that other Microsoft products do not include the same upstream library. Treat the Azure Linux attestation as authoritative for that product, and treat the absence of attestations for other Microsoft SKUs as “not yet checked” rather than “not affected.” tly is
CVE‑2024‑2511 affects OpenSSL server implementations that support TLSv1.3 and that are configured with the non‑default SSL_OP_NO_TICKET option (a configuration that disables session tickets). Under certain configurations — notably when early_data is not enabled and default anti‑replay protections are not in play — the session cache state machine can become incorrect and fail to evict entries. The result is a continuously growing session cache that can exhaust memory on the TLS server until it becomes unavailable. The vulnerability is limited to TLS servers; clients are not affected.
OpenSSL and downstream distributors treated the issue as significant enough to warrant fixes and advisories. The upstream OpenSSL advisory and multiple distribution advisories identify affected version ranges and provide fixed releases or backported patches; downstream vendors (Linux distributions, appliance vendors) issued security updates in the weeks following disclosure. The canonical technical details are available in OpenSSL’s advisory/commit notes and in public vulnerability feeds such as NVD and distribution security trackers.
Why this matters: OpenSSL is a ubiquitous TLS implementation. When a flaw touches a common TLS code path — even one that only triggers under non‑default settings — the blast radius depends on how many products embed the vulnerable OpenSSL build and how those builds are configured in production. A product that ships OpenSSL but does not enable TLSv1.3 servers or that never sets SSL_OP_NO_TICKET in server mode is, in practice, less exposed than one that does.

---

Microsoft’s statement and what it does — and doesn’t — tell you​

Microsoft’s public guidance for CVE‑2024‑2511 included the line that “Azure Linux includes this open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected,” and the company also noted its phased rollout of machine‑readable CSAF/VEX attestations (starting with Azure Linux in October 2025) and a commitment to update CVE mappings if additional Microsoft products are found to include the implicated upstream component. That wording is an inventory attestation: it certifies a confirmed product carrier but does not assert exclusivity. In plain terms: Azure Linux is a confirmed in‑scope Micits published mappings if it finds other Microsoft artifacts that ship the same vulnerable library.
Why that distinction matters:

• An attestation names a product and the component(s) within it that were verified during Microsoft’s inventory process.
• A negative or absent attestation is not a proof that other products are safe — it usually means Microsoft has not yet completed the same inventory for that product.
• Microsoft explicitly committed to update the CVE’s product mapping if additional Microsoft‑distributed carriers are discovereis is an ongoing inventory effort, not an all‑or‑nothing technical guarantee.

Put another way: Azure Linux is the product Microsoft has checked and declared to carry the vulnerable OpenSSL library. That is useful and actionable for customers who run Azure Linux images. But the statement should not be read — by defende universal exoneration of every other Microsoft product.

---

Which Microsoft products could also carry OpenSSL — and why you should check them​

It’s tempting to treat the Microsoft product portfolio as a single homogenous artifact and say “Microsoft doesn’t ship OpenSSL in product X,” but there are a few realities that make per‑artifact verification essential:

• Many Microsoft server‑side components are assemblies of open‑source packages or ship agent/daemon binaries compiled from third‑party sources. These can include OpenSSL even when the primary product customer‑facing surface uses Windows’ native SChannel.
• Microsoft’s cloud and management tooling ecosystem is broad: telemetry agents, monitoring agents, appliance firmware, container hosts, language runtimes, SDKs, and smaller ancillary utilities may bundle OpenSSL for portability across platforms.
• Linux‑based distributions and images that Microsoft publishes (Azure Linux, CBL‑Mariner, WSL‑related kernels or images, container base images used in Azure services) may reuse the same upstream packages or backport similar fixes.

Concrete examples (why defenders should verify):

• Azure Linux (attested) — verified by Microsoft to include the vulnerable library; follow vendor updates and apply the provided OpenSSL upgrade or Microsoft security o.
• CBL‑Mariner and other Microsoft‑published Linux artifacts — historically Microsoft has published fixes or advisories for these images and sometimes names them in VEX/CSAF entries; if you run Microsoft Linux images or appliances, inventory themonitoring and management tools (third‑party or Microsoft‑built) that ship cross‑platform builds — these often statically link or bundle OpenSSL on Linux builds; check the specific binary/version used by the agent. (This is an operational principle rather than a single product claim; Microsoft’s VEX rollout is intended to make such verification easier over time.)

Important cautioner OS installations rarely ship OpenSSL as a system TLS provider; Microsoft’s Windows TLS stack uses SChannel. But that does not eliminate exposure if Microsoft or third parties ship components for Windows that embed an OpenSSL build (for example, bundled runtimes, Cygwin ports, Git for Windows, or third‑party packages that include OpenSSL). Always verify by artifact-level inspection.

---

How defenders should treat Microsoft’s attestation — a practical checklist​

Microsoft’s Azure Linux attestation gives you a clear starting point. Use it, but don’t stop there. The recommended defender playbook:

• Inventory first (per‑artifact)
• Produce a list of all Microsoft products and images you run in your environment: Azure Linux images, CBL‑Mariner images, WSL2 kernels, Azure Marketplace images, Microsoft agents, and cloud services’ managed endpoints.
• For each product, capture the actual binaries / package manifests (SBOMs where available).
• Look for OpenSSL indicators
• Search package managers and binaries for OpenSSL version metadata.
• On Linux: dpkg/rpm package queries, ldd on binaries, and strings/grep against the binary for OpenSSL version indicators.
• On Windows: check bundled third‑party packages, installers, portable executables that may embed OpenSSL.
• Verify configurations (not just presence)
• If OpenSSL is present, determine whether the product runs TLSv1.3 server code and whether server configurations may set SSL_OP_NO_TICKET or otherwise manipulate session ticket behavior.
• The vulnerability is most problematic in TLSv1.3 server configurations that use SSL_OP_NO_TICKET without early_data and default anti‑replay protections.
• Patch or mitigate
• Apply vendor‑provided OpenSSL patches or package updates for the affected products (upstream OpenSSL released fixes and distributions backported them). Distributors published fixed versions and patches; update to those releases as recommended by your vendor/distribution.
• If an immediate upgrade is not available, consider configuration mitigations such as avoiding SSL_OP_NO_TICKET usage in server configurations where practical (the OpenSSL advisory notes disabling the option as a short‑term workaround in some cases). Note: configuration changes must be validated for functional impact (session tickets affect session resumption behavior and load‑balancer affinity in some deployments).
• Monitor and test
• Use stress tests and memory profiling for TLS endpoint code paths to detect abnormal session cache growth.
• Apply automated scanning (SCA) and SBOM comparison against the published Microsoft VEX/CSAF entries as those are updated.
• Rely on vendor attestations — but verify
• Treat Microsoft’s VEX/CSAF attestation for Azure Linux as authoritative for that product, and use it to prioritize patching for Azure Linux images.
• For other Microsoft artifacts, don’t assume safety by omission; perform the per‑artifact checks above. Microsoft has said it will update product mappings if more carrie process is phased and incomplete for many product lines.

---

Patching and technical mitigation details (what to apply and why)​

OpenSSL upstream and downstream distributors recommended upgrades and published fixed commits. The practical guidance that defenders will see in distribution advisories is:

• Upgrade OpenSSL to a fixed release: OpenSSL 3.2.x, 3.1.x and 3.0.x lines received fixes in point releases; many Linux distributions published security updates that replaced vulnerable package builds with patched versions. Check your distribution’s security advisory for the exact fixed package version. Distribution security trackers (Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Alpine, etc.) provide the fixed package numbers and instructions.
• If a product vendor (including Microsoft for Azure Linux images) has published a vendor fix, apply the vendor’s update — vendor packages often include distro‑specific backports and may be easier to consume in production than upstream source rebuilds. Microsoft has signaled it will publish CSAF/VEX artifacts to indicate which of its products components; use those artifacts to prioritize patching workflows once available.
• Temporary configuration workaround: avoid SSL_OP_NO_TICKET in TLSv1.3 server configuration when feasible. This is an imperfect mitigation: session tickets are a common and valuable performance/UX mechanism for session resumption. The decision to disable them must balance security and operational demand. The OpenSSL advisory and downstream vendor advisories mention this option as a possible workaround where immediate patching is not yet possible.

---

Risk analysis: why Microsoft’s attestation is helpful but not the final word​

Strengths of Microsoft’s approach

• Microsoft’s decision to publish CSAF/VEX attestations (beginning with Azure Linux) is a material win for transparency. It gives customers a machine‑readable mapping from CVEs to Microsoft product artifacts and a clear remediation path where Microsoft has confirmed cof attestation — for at least one major product family — enables faster decision making for Azure Linux customers.

Key limitations and residual risks

• Attestation rollout is phased. Microsoft explicitly said it will expand attestations over time and update CVE entries when other products are identified. This means that at any given moment the absence of evidence of absence. Attack surface remains where Microsoft has not yet completed inventory.
• Binary composition and third‑party bundling can hide vulnerable libraries. A Microsoft product can be exposed not because Microsoft built the component from scratch, but because a bundled agent, a third‑party runtime, or a container image embedded within a product contains OpenSSL. Those carriers only become visible after artifact‑level inspection or SBOM publication.
• Configuration specifics matter. Even when OpenSSL is present, the real exploitability depends on whether the product runs a TLSv1.3 server and whether its configuration triggers the problematic code path. That complexity reduces the universal severity but increases operational verification overhead: defenders must check both presence and configuration.

Bottom line: Microsoft’s attestation reduces uncertainty for the named product (Azure Linux) but is onleral you must use to assess risk across your Microsoft‑stack footprint.

---

What to tell executive stakeholders and security leadership​

If you must brief executives or customers, keep the message simple and concrete:

• What we know: OpenSSL had a TLSv1.3 server bug (CVE‑2024‑2511) that can cause unbounded memory growth in certain non‑default server configurations. The vulnerability has been fixed upstream and distributors have issued patches.
• What Microsoft said: Microsoft has publicly attested that Azure Linux includes the implicated open‑source library and is therefore potentially affected; that attestation is authoritative for Azure Linux but is not a statement that no other Microsoft product could carry the vulnerability. Microsoft is rolling out machine‑readable attestations and will update CVE mappings if additional carriers are identified.
• What we recommend (actionable summary):
• Inventory all Microsoft images and components you run (Azure Linux, Marketplace images, management agents, WSL images, container base images).
• Prioritize patching of Azure Linux images and any confirmed carriers immediately.
• Where OpenSSL is present on Linux TLS servers and the service exposes TLSv1.3 server endpoints, plan package upgrades to the fixed OpenSSL versions or apply vendor patches.
• If you cannot patch immediately, consider configuration mitigations and increased monitoring for memory growth on TLS endpoints.
• Ask vendors (includMs or CSAF/VEX attestations for any product you run that you cannot self‑inspect.

---

Final analysis and recommendations​

CVE‑2024‑2511 is an example of how a narrowly scoped, configuration‑dependent bug can still produce outsized operational headaches because of OpenSSL’s ubiquity and the complexity of product packaging. Microsoft’s attestation that Azure Linux includes the affected library is valuable and reduces time‑to‑patch for customers of that distribution. But security teams should not equate a single attestation with a universal guarantee: the right operational posture is artifact‑level verification and prioritized patching.
For defenders, the practical roadmap is clear:

• Treat Microtestation as an instruction to patch Azure Linux images now.
• Use SBOMs, package queries, and binary inspections to find other OpenSSL carriers in your Microsoft product footprint.
• Validate TLS server configurations for exposure to the SSL_OP_NO_TICKET/early_data interaction, and apply mitigations where immediate patching is not possible.
• Track Microsoft’s ongoing CSAF/VEX updates and subscribe to your distribution and vendor security advisories for concrete package versions and vendor remediation steps.

CVE‑2024‑2511 is fixed upstream and by distributors, and Microsoft has signaled a path to increased transparency via VEX/CSAF. Use the attestation as a prioritization tool, but don’t let it be the only tool in your inventory and remediation toolbox.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center