Introducing Credential Stuffing Detection
Introducing Credential Stuffing Detection
Introducing Credential Stuffing Detection
Introducing Credential Stuffing Detection
Introducing Credential Stuffing Detection
Introducing Credential Stuffing Detection
Privacy settings
We use cookies and similar technologies that are necessary to run the website. Additional cookies are only used with your consent. You can consent to our use of cookies by clicking on Agree. For more information on which data is collected and how it is shared with our partners please read our privacy and cookie policy: Cookie policy, Privacy policy
We use cookies to access, analyse and store information such as the characteristics of your device as well as certain personal data (IP addresses, navigation usage, geolocation data or unique identifiers). The processing of your data serves various purposes: Analytics cookies allow us to analyse our performance to offer you a better online experience and evaluate the efficiency of our campaigns. Personalisation cookies give you access to a customised experience of our website with usage-based offers and support. Finally, Advertising cookies are placed by third-party companies processing your data to create audiences lists to deliver targeted ads on social media and the internet. You may freely give, refuse or withdraw your consent at any time using the link provided at the bottom of each page.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.



The SSL 3.0 protocol is defenseless against the POODLE attack (Padding Oracle on Downgraded Legacy Encryption) (CVE-2014-3566). This blemish empowers an assailant to catch SSLv3-scrambled traffic. The Transport Layer Security convention (TLS), the trade for SSL, no longer has the imperfection (Secure Socket Layer).

Continue reading as this article has poodle attack explained and highlighted poodle attack examples.


What Is the POODLE Attack?

An exploit called the CVE-2014-3566, or poodle attack CVE, is utilized to take information from secure associations, including cookies, passwords, and some other sort of program information encoded because of the protected attachments layer (SSL) convention.

The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) distributed a warning in October 2014 concerning an imperfection in the encryption used to get web traffic. As a result, network traffic between a client and a server can be decoded by aggressors utilizing the security issue known as POODLE (Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption).

POODLE attack TLS can be utilized compromise forms of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, SSL 3.0 and SSL 2.0, which encode and verify information moved over the web. A couple of programs support SSL, notwithstanding how the business has supplanted these conventions with the fresher and safer TLS associations. A POODLE attack SSL occurs at the point when TLS is not free, an aggressor attempting to utilize POODLE can urge specific programs to change to SSL 3.0 by disrupting the correspondents' association.

How do POODLE attacks work?

A man-in-the-middle (MiTM) assailant can tune in on correspondences that are expected to be protected thanks to the POODLE security shortcoming. The client would then completely go over the weak web application. This suggests that assailants can utilize POODLE to take clients' confidential data and — possibly — mock the client.

The accompanying three phases should be finished effectively for a POODLE attack to be powerful:

  • An effective MiTM attack permits an assailant to get to casualties' delicate information at the underlying stage. In a MiTM attack, an aggressor subtly puts themself between two gatherings who are imparting over the web to block and hand-off correspondences to and from them. This is a sort of dynamic listening in. In this way, the aggressor is responsible for the whole correspondence even though the casualties think they are addressing each other straight over an intimate association.
  • The assailant makes the server utilize the SSL 3.0 convention during the subsequent step. When a fresher convention, such as TLS 1.2, cannot be utilized, they accomplish this by more than once disengaging associations during the MiTM attack until the help changes to the more established convention. The downsize attack alludes to this period of the POODLE attack.
  • At the point when the server moves up to SSL 3.0, the aggressor uses POODLE to unscramble parcels and concentrate information. This involves that they can get to the data in plaintext in decoded information and capture the meeting of the defenseless client.
how do POODLE attacks work
POODLE attack in action

What Is Padding and Padding Oracle?

All of the data in a block cipher must be multiples of the block size. For instance, data must be 64, 80, or 336 bytes if the block size is 8. (a multiple of 8). It must be padded with unnecessary information if it is not a multiple of 8 to be the appropriate length.

The padding method used by the majority of web servers is:

  • The padding length must always be contained in the final byte of the final block. The amount of padding in the preceding bytes is represented by that value. For instance, if 4 bytes are padded, the block value is xx-xx-xx-yy-yy-yy-yy-04 (yy stands for padding), which SSL requires.
  • The values of all padding bytes are often the same as the length value in implementations. For instance, the value of the block would be xx-xx-xx-04-04-04-04 if 4 out of 8 bytes were padded.
  • There must be an additional block added with merely padding if the length of the data is greater than the block size, for instance, 336 in this case: 07-07-07-07-07-07-07. If the last byte did not indicate padding, the algorithm could not distinguish padding from actual data.
  • In other words, the block will be allowed as long as the last byte is between 00 and 07 because SSL does not verify padding bytes (aside from the padding length). So, for instance, a block with the numbers xx-xx-xx-12-34-56-78-04 is acceptable.

In the padding oracle, the attacker can determine whether the data they submitted to the server was rejected because the padding was incorrect or because the MAC was incorrect.

Consider the following scenario:

  1. Data from the browser is received by the attacker, who is aware that it includes a password. Additionally, the attacker is aware that this request is an HTTP POST and is fully aware of where the password is in this request.
  2. Before sending the encrypted data to the server, the attacker alters it.
  3. In response, the server informs the attacker that the data is inaccurate. The response can, however, come in the form of one of two fault types: either it can inform the attacker that the padding or MAC was incorrect. This enables the POODLE attack.
  4. Other attacks also employ padding oracles. Some protocols do not answer immediately but, for instance, might first verify the padding before checking the MAC. In certain circumstances, if the attacker receives a prompt response, it is a padding error, but if the attacker receives a delayed response, it is a MAC error.

Performing a typical POODLE attack

Coming up next is what the aggressor performs to do a standard attack POODLE and take a web meeting cookie:

  1. By fooling the casualty's program into executing JavaScript code, the aggressor can do the assault.
  2. The assailant's JavaScript code deceives the client program into making a few certified solicitations to the server. The meeting cookie is essential for these solicitations.
  3. To guarantee that the length of the information conveyed to the server is numerous of the block size, the JavaScript code modifies the association URL by adding additional characters (for instance, 8). This demonstrates that the last block will just incorporate cushioning.
  4. Which information impedes the meeting cookie is situated in is known to the aggressor. The assailant, for example, might know that the meeting cookie esteem is contained in blocks three and four of the information, which has ten blocks complete.
  5. To make an interesting MAC, the assailant over and over sends the server a few duplicates of the third full block to the last block while modifying the association URL on each event.
  6. The message may be acknowledged multiple times altogether. The number 07, which indicates appropriate cushioning, will be the last byte of the third block following decoding.
  7. With the unscrambled last byte now in their control, the aggressor can utilize XOR activities to join it with prior blocks to get the genuine third block's last byte.
  8. The assailant can then add an additional one byte to the association URL and rehash the past methods to acquire the following cookie section. The fourth information block ought to then be rehashed.
  9. In the event that the cookieed length is 16, the aggressor will not have a clue about the cookiement until they have made all things considered to be 4096 solicitations, which requires a couple of moments.

Is your web server vulnerable to POODLE - How do I know?

Assuming your web server upholds SSL 3.0, you just have to be aware to decide whether it is POODLE-defenseless. Wallarm can be utilized to decide if your web server upholds SSL 3.0. You can identify web weaknesses physically too, yet Wallarm can do substantially more.

Moreover, POODLE could take advantage of obsolete TLS convention executions. However, all ongoing TLS executions are secure.

It ought to be noted that POODLE influences web servers and programs and is an organization's weakness.

Preventing POODLE Attacks

Even though there is practically no probability of savage driving SSL v3.0 encryption, the POODLE attack permits every byte of a scrambled message to be recuperated without decoding after a restriction of 256 attempts. This means something like 4096 endeavors, or a couple of moments, for a 16-byte meeting cookie, which is a very sizable chance to send off useful assaults. Something critical should have been finished.

The CVE-ID CVE-2014-3566 for the POODLE weakness was apportioned upon divulgence on October fourteenth, 2014. Albeit crippling the obsolete SSL v3.0 convention in web-based programs and servers was the conspicuous choice, this would have broken numerous sites and more seasoned frameworks in 2014. One arrangement (recently used to balance the BEAST assault) was just to eliminate support for the weak codes and change to those presented by SSL v3.0 since the assault just influences block figures in CBC mode. The RC4 stream figure was everything that was left, which was appalling since it had proactively been demonstrated to be powerless.

The TLS FALLBACK SCSV figure suite choice was recommended as an impermanent fix by the POODLE scientists to permit backup usefulness while forestalling constrained downsizing to a less safe SSL/TLS convention. This halted attacks on conventional downsizing while proceeding to help old servers and programs. Merchants and site proprietors acted quickly to execute TLS FALLBACK SCSV and suspend support for SSL v3.0 at the present time or before long. RFC 7568 officially belittled SSL v3.0 in June of that year.


SSL v3.0 was utilized in heritage frameworks, especially inward applications that kept on utilizing obsolete variants of Internet Explorer, despite convincing proof that it was uncertain. Moving up to a safer convention was frequently not worth breaking heritage support since. At the same time, a dependable danger, the POODLE attack, must be sent off in a man-in-the-middle situation. As indicated by the late review, up to 4% of public web servers will, in any case, uphold SSL v3.0 starting around 2020.



Subscribe for the latest news

February 26, 2024
Learning Objectives
Subscribe for
the latest news
Related Topics