| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Weak algorithm used to sign RPM package. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Agent (Linux) before build 39185, Acronis Cyber Protect 16 (Linux) before build 39938. |
| openwrt/asu is an image on demand server for OpenWrt based distributions. The request hashing mechanism truncates SHA-256 hashes to only 12 characters. This significantly reduces entropy, making it feasible for an attacker to generate collisions. By exploiting this, a previously built malicious image can be served in place of a legitimate one, allowing the attacker to "poison" the artifact cache and deliver compromised images to unsuspecting users. This can be combined with other attacks, such as a command injection in Imagebuilder that allows malicious users to inject arbitrary commands into the build process, resulting in the production of malicious firmware images signed with the legitimate build key. This has been patched with 920c8a1. |
| An issue in the index.js decryptCookie function of cookie-encrypter v1.0.1 allows attackers to execute a bit flipping attack. |
| sftpgo is a full-featured and highly configurable event-driven file transfer solution. Server protocols: SFTP, HTTP/S, FTP/S, WebDAV. The OpenID Connect implementation allows authenticated users to brute force session cookies and thereby gain access to other users' data, since the cookies are generated predictably using the xid library and are therefore unique but not cryptographically secure. This issue was fixed in version v2.6.4, where cookies are opaque and cryptographically secure strings. All users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. |
| Use of hard-coded cryptographic key issue exists in "Kura Sushi Official App Produced by EPARK" for Android versions prior to 3.8.5. If this vulnerability is exploited, a local attacker may obtain the login ID and password for the affected product. |
| ### Impact
When this library is used to deserialize messagepack data from an untrusted source, there is a risk of a denial of service attack by an attacker that sends data contrived to produce hash collisions, leading to large CPU consumption disproportionate to the size of the data being deserialized.
This is similar to [a prior advisory](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-7q36-4xx7-xcxf), which provided an inadequate fix for the hash collision part of the vulnerability.
### Patches
The following steps are required to mitigate this risk.
1. Upgrade to a version of the library where a fix is available.
1. Review the steps in [this previous advisory](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-7q36-4xx7-xcxf) to ensure you have your application configured for untrusted data.
### Workarounds
If upgrading MessagePack to a patched version is not an option for you, you may apply a manual workaround as follows:
1. Declare a class that derives from `MessagePackSecurity`.
2. Override the `GetHashCollisionResistantEqualityComparer<T>` method to provide a collision-resistant hash function of your own and avoid calling `base.GetHashCollisionResistantEqualityComparer<T>()`.
3. Configure a `MessagePackSerializerOptions` with an instance of your derived type by calling `WithSecurity` on an existing options object.
4. Use your custom options object for all deserialization operations. This may be by setting the `MessagePackSerializer.DefaultOptions` static property, if you call methods that rely on this default property, and/or by passing in the options object explicitly to any `Deserialize` method.
### References
- Learn more about best security practices when reading untrusted data with [MessagePack 1.x](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/tree/v1.x#security) or [MessagePack 2.x](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp#security).
- The .NET team's [discussion on hash collision vulnerabilities of their `HashCode` struct](https://github.com/GrabYourPitchforks/runtime/blob/threat_models/docs/design/security/System.HashCode.md).
### For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
* [Start a public discussion](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/discussions)
* [Email us privately](mailto:andrewarnott@live.com) |
| Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker (who needs to have Admin access privileges) to read hardcoded AES passphrase, which may be used for decryption of certain data within backup files of 2N Access Commander version 1.14 and older.
2N has released an updated version 3.3 of 2N Access Commander, where this vulnerability is mitigated. It is recommended that all customers update 2N Access Commander to the latest version. |
| RLPx 5 has two CTR streams based on the same key, IV, and nonce. This can facilitate decryption on a private network. |
| This vulnerability exists in USB Pratirodh due to the usage of a weaker cryptographic algorithm (hash) SHA1 in user login component. A local attacker with administrative privileges could exploit this vulnerability to obtain the password of USB Pratirodh on the targeted system.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow the attacker to take control of the application and modify the access control of registered users or devices on the targeted system.
|
| A static initialization vector (IV) in the encrypt function of netbird management's service from v0.23.2 to v0.29.1 allows attackers to obtain sensitive information (email addresses) when in possession of the audit events database. |
| Inadequate encryption strength for some BMRA software before version 22.08 may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIPROTEC 5 6MD84 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD89 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SX82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SX85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UM85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BD-2FO (All versions < V9.62), SIPROTEC 5 Compact 7SX800 (CP050) (All versions < V9.64). The affected devices are supporting weak ciphers on several ports (443/tcp for web, 4443/tcp for DIGSI 5 and configurable port for syslog over TLS).
This could allow an unauthorized attacker in a man-in-the-middle position to decrypt any data passed over to and from those ports. |
| This vulnerability exists in AppSamvid software due to the usage of a weaker cryptographic algorithm (hash) SHA1 in user login component. An attacker with local administrative privileges could exploit this to obtain the password of AppSamvid on the targeted system.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow the attacker to take complete control of the application on the targeted system. |
|
A hard-coded AES key vulnerability was reported in the Motorola GuideMe application, along with a lack of URI sanitation, could allow for a local attacker to read arbitrary files.
|
| HCL DRYiCE Optibot Reset Station is impacted by a missing Strict Transport Security Header. This could allow an attacker to intercept or manipulate data during redirection. |
| Cryptographic Flaw in PDFium in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed an attacker to read potentially sensitive information from encrypted PDFs via a brute-force attack. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Configured cipher preference order not preserved vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.
This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.16 through 11.0.18, from 10.1.51 through 10.1.52, from 9.0.114 through 9.0.115.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.20, 10.1.53 or 9.0.116, which fix the issue. |
| A Key Exchange without Entity Authentication vulnerability in the SSH implementation of Juniper Networks Apstra allows a unauthenticated, MITM
attacker to impersonate managed devices.
Due to insufficient SSH host key validation an attacker can perform a machine-in-the-middle attack on the SSH connections from Apstra to managed devices, enabling an attacker to impersonate a managed device and capture user credentials.
This issue affects all versions of Apstra before 6.1.1. |
| The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that the A-MSDU flag in the plaintext QoS header field is authenticated. Against devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames (which is mandatory as part of 802.11n), an adversary can abuse this to inject arbitrary network packets. |
| Cocos AI is a confidential computing system for AI. The current implementation of attested TLS (aTLS) in CoCoS is vulnerable to a relay attack affecting all versions from v0.4.0 through v0.8.2. This vulnerability is present in both the AMD SEV-SNP and Intel TDX deployment targets supported by CoCoS. In the affected design, an attacker may be able to extract the ephemeral TLS private key used during the intra-handshake attestation. Because the attestation evidence is bound to the ephemeral key but not to the TLS channel, possession of that key is sufficient to relay or divert the attested TLS session. A client will accept the connection under false assumptions about the endpoint it is communicating with — the attestation report cannot distinguish the genuine attested service from the attacker's relay. This undermines the intended authentication guarantees of attested TLS. A successful attack may allow an attacker to impersonate an attested CoCoS service and access data or operations that the client intended to send only to the genuine attested endpoint. Exploitation requires the attacker to first extract the ephemeral TLS private key, which is possible through physical access to the server hardware, transient execution attacks, or side-channel attacks. Note that the aTLS implementation was fully redesigned in v0.7.0, but the redesign does not address this vulnerability. The relay attack weakness is architectural and affects all releases in the v0.4.0–v0.8.2 range. This vulnerability class was formally analyzed and demonstrated across multiple attested TLS implementations, including CoCoS, by researchers whose findings were disclosed to the IETF TLS Working Group. Formal verification was conducted using ProVerif. As of time of publication, there is no patch available. No complete workaround is available. The following hardening measures reduce but do not eliminate the risk: Keep TEE firmware and microcode up to date to reduce the key-extraction surface; define strict attestation policies that validate all available report fields, including firmware versions, TCB levels, and platform configuration registers; and/or enable mutual aTLS with CA-signed certificates where deployment architecture permits. |
