[user5994461]

> An attacker could repeat the undefined plaintext warning packets of "SSL3_AL_WARNING" during the handshake, which will easily make to consume 100% CPU on the server.

> It is an implementation problem in OpenSSL that OpenSSL would ignore undefined warning, and continue dealing with the remaining data(if exist). So the attacker could pack multiple alerts inside a single record and send a large number of there large records. Then the server will be fallen in a meaningless cycle, and not available to any others.

SSL3 is vulnerable and should be banned in the webserver's configuration. It stopped being supported by major browsers years ago.

The article doesn't say if webservers are vulnerable when they block SSL3 entirely. If so, it's the hell of a critical vulnerability! Otherwise, http://disablessl3.com/

[tveita]

There is a fair bit in common between the different versions of SSL/TLS, and functions and constants in OpenSSL tend to get get named with the version of the protocol they were introduced in.

So "SSL3_AL_WARNING" isn't necessarily exclusively used in SSLv3, if the format wasn't changed in TLS.

[yuhong]

This is why I consider merging SSLv2 and SSLv3 into the term "SSL" a misnomer. The two are really completely different protocols.

[leesalminen]

> Otherwise, http://disablessl3.com/

Says the website with no TLS ;)

[foota]

Well, they did disable ssl3