Vulnerabilities (CVE)

A vulnerability in Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper handling of certain TLS connections that are processed by an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of concurrent TLS connections to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause ... A vulnerability in Cisco AsyncOS Software for Cisco Email Security Appliance (ESA) could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper handling of certain TLS connections that are processed by an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by establishing a large number of concurrent TLS connections to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause the device to drop new TLS email messages that come from the associated email servers. Exploitation of this vulnerability does not cause the affected device to unexpectedly reload. The device will recover autonomously within a few hours of when the attack is halted or mitigated.

Show More

A vulnerability in the SSL/TLS implementation of Cisco Nexus Dashboard could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to alter communications with associated controllers or view sensitive information. This vulnerability exists because SSL server certificates are not validated when Cisco Nexus Dashboard is establishing a connection to Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC), Cisco Cloud APIC, or Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller, formerly Data Center Network Manager (DCNM ... A vulnerability in the SSL/TLS implementation of Cisco Nexus Dashboard could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to alter communications with associated controllers or view sensitive information. This vulnerability exists because SSL server certificates are not validated when Cisco Nexus Dashboard is establishing a connection to Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC), Cisco Cloud APIC, or Cisco Nexus Dashboard Fabric Controller, formerly Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) controllers. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by using man-in-the-middle techniques to intercept the traffic between the affected device and the controllers, and then using a crafted certificate to impersonate the controllers. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to alter communications between devices or view sensitive information, including Administrator credentials for these controllers.

Show More

Multiple vulnerabilities in the API and in the web-based management interface of Cisco Expressway Series and Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) could allow a remote attacker to overwrite arbitrary files or conduct null byte poisoning attacks on an affected device. Note: Cisco Expressway Series refers to the Expressway Control (Expressway-C) device and the Expressway Edge (Expressway-E) device. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advi ... Multiple vulnerabilities in the API and in the web-based management interface of Cisco Expressway Series and Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) could allow a remote attacker to overwrite arbitrary files or conduct null byte poisoning attacks on an affected device. Note: Cisco Expressway Series refers to the Expressway Control (Expressway-C) device and the Expressway Edge (Expressway-E) device. For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.

Show More

In A-GPS, there is a possible man in the middle attack due to improper certificate validation. This could lead to remote information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06461919; Issue ID: ALPS06461919.

In ccu, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to a missing certificate validation. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is no needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06183315; Issue ID: ALPS06183315.

In Preloader XFLASH, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to an improper certificate validation. This could lead to local escalation of privilege for an attacker who has physical access to the device with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06160806; Issue ID: ALPS06160806.

When connecting to Amazon Workspaces, the SHA256 presented by AWS connection provisioner is not fully verified by Zero Clients. The issue could be exploited by an adversary that places a MITM (Man in the Middle) between a zero client and AWS session provisioner in the network. This issue is only applicable when connecting to an Amazon Workspace from a PCoIP Zero Client.

An Improper Certificate Validation attack was found in Openshift. A re-encrypt Route with destinationCACertificate explicitly set to the default serviceCA skips internal Service TLS certificate validation. This flaw allows an attacker to exploit an invalid certificate, resulting in a loss of confidentiality.

A flaw was found in all versions of kubeclient up to (but not including) v4.9.3, the Ruby client for Kubernetes REST API, in the way it parsed kubeconfig files. When the kubeconfig file does not configure custom CA to verify certs, kubeclient ends up accepting any certificate (it wrongly returns VERIFY_NONE). Ruby applications that leverage kubeclient to parse kubeconfig files are susceptible to Man-in-the-middle attacks (MITM).

An issue has been discovered affecting GitLab versions prior to 14.4.5, between 14.5.0 and 14.5.3, and between 14.6.0 and 14.6.1. GitLab does not validate SSL certificates for some of external CI services which makes it possible to perform MitM attacks on connections to these external services.

The client applications in 3CX on Windows, the 3CX app for iOS, and the 3CX application for Android through 2022-03-17 lack SSL certificate validation.

Velneo vClient on its 28.1.3 version, does not correctly check the certificate of authenticity by default. This could allow an attacker that has access to the network to perform a MITM attack in order to obtain the user´s credentials.

Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail provides a simple layer on top of JavaMail/Jakarta Mail for OSGi to send mails via SMTPS. To reduce the risk of "man in the middle" attacks additional server identity checks must be performed when accessing mail servers. For compatibility reasons these additional checks are disabled by default in JavaMail/Jakarta Mail. The SimpleMailService in Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail 1.0 lacks an option to enable these checks for the shared mail session. A user cou ... Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail provides a simple layer on top of JavaMail/Jakarta Mail for OSGi to send mails via SMTPS. To reduce the risk of "man in the middle" attacks additional server identity checks must be performed when accessing mail servers. For compatibility reasons these additional checks are disabled by default in JavaMail/Jakarta Mail. The SimpleMailService in Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail 1.0 lacks an option to enable these checks for the shared mail session. A user could enable these checks nevertheless by accessing the session via the message created by SimpleMessageBuilder and setting the property mail.smtps.ssl.checkserveridentity to true. Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail 2.0 adds support for enabling server identity checks and these checks are enabled by default. - https://javaee.github.io/javamail/docs/SSLNOTES.txt - https://javaee.github.io/javamail/docs/api/com/sun/mail/smtp/package-summary.html - https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail/issues/429

Show More

Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 did not handle multi-value Relative Distinguished Names correctly. Attackers could craft certificate subjects containing a single-value Relative Distinguished Name that would be interpreted as a multi-value Relative Distinguished Name, for example, in order to inject a Common Name that would allow bypassing the certificate subject verification.Affected versions of Node.js that do not accept multi-value Relative Distinguished Names and are thu ... Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 did not handle multi-value Relative Distinguished Names correctly. Attackers could craft certificate subjects containing a single-value Relative Distinguished Name that would be interpreted as a multi-value Relative Distinguished Name, for example, in order to inject a Common Name that would allow bypassing the certificate subject verification.Affected versions of Node.js that do not accept multi-value Relative Distinguished Names and are thus not vulnerable to such attacks themselves. However, third-party code that uses node's ambiguous presentation of certificate subjects may be vulnerable.

Show More

Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 converts SANs (Subject Alternative Names) to a string format. It uses this string to check peer certificates against hostnames when validating connections. The string format was subject to an injection vulnerability when name constraints were used within a certificate chain, allowing the bypass of these name constraints.Versions of Node.js with the fix for this escape SANs containing the problematic characters in order to prevent the injectio ... Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 converts SANs (Subject Alternative Names) to a string format. It uses this string to check peer certificates against hostnames when validating connections. The string format was subject to an injection vulnerability when name constraints were used within a certificate chain, allowing the bypass of these name constraints.Versions of Node.js with the fix for this escape SANs containing the problematic characters in order to prevent the injection. This behavior can be reverted through the --security-revert command-line option.

Show More

Accepting arbitrary Subject Alternative Name (SAN) types, unless a PKI is specifically defined to use a particular SAN type, can result in bypassing name-constrained intermediates. Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 was accepting URI SAN types, which PKIs are often not defined to use. Additionally, when a protocol allows URI SANs, Node.js did not match the URI correctly.Versions of Node.js with the fix for this disable the URI SAN type when checking a certificate against a hos ... Accepting arbitrary Subject Alternative Name (SAN) types, unless a PKI is specifically defined to use a particular SAN type, can result in bypassing name-constrained intermediates. Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 was accepting URI SAN types, which PKIs are often not defined to use. Additionally, when a protocol allows URI SANs, Node.js did not match the URI correctly.Versions of Node.js with the fix for this disable the URI SAN type when checking a certificate against a hostname. This behavior can be reverted through the --security-revert command-line option.

Show More

e2guardian v5.4.x <= v5.4.3r is affected by missing SSL certificate validation in the SSL MITM engine. In standalone mode (i.e., acting as a proxy or a transparent proxy), with SSL MITM enabled, e2guardian, if built with OpenSSL v1.1.x, did not validate hostnames in certificates of the web servers that it connected to, and thus was itself vulnerable to MITM attacks.

Microsoft Defender for IoT Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Odyssey passes to client unencrypted bytes from man-in-the-middle When Odyssey storage is configured to use the PostgreSQL server using 'trust' authentication with a 'clientcert' requirement or to use 'cert' authentication, a man-in-the-middle attacker can inject false responses to the client's first few queries. Despite the use of SSL certificate verification and encryption, Odyssey will pass these results to client as if they originated from valid server. This is similar to CVE-2021-23222 for ... Odyssey passes to client unencrypted bytes from man-in-the-middle When Odyssey storage is configured to use the PostgreSQL server using 'trust' authentication with a 'clientcert' requirement or to use 'cert' authentication, a man-in-the-middle attacker can inject false responses to the client's first few queries. Despite the use of SSL certificate verification and encryption, Odyssey will pass these results to client as if they originated from valid server. This is similar to CVE-2021-23222 for PostgreSQL.

Show More

Odyssey passes to server unencrypted bytes from man-in-the-middle When Odyssey is configured to use certificate Common Name for client authentication, a man-in-the-middle attacker can inject arbitrary SQL queries when a connection is first established, despite the use of SSL certificate verification and encryption. This is similar to CVE-2021-23214 for PostgreSQL.

A vulnerability has been identified in SINUMERIK Edge (All versions < V3.2). The affected software does not properly validate the server certificate when initiating a TLS connection. This could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by interfering in the communication path between the client and the intended server.

An issue was discovered in Squid 5.0.6 through 5.1.x before 5.2. When validating an origin server or peer certificate, Squid may incorrectly classify certain certificates as trusted. This problem allows a remote server to obtain security trust well improperly. This indication of trust may be passed along to clients, allowing access to unsafe or hijacked services.

A combination of a use of hard-coded cryptographic key vulnerability [CWE-321] in FortiClientEMS 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below and an improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-297] in FortiClientWindows, FortiClientLinux and FortiClientMac 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below may allow an unauthenticated and network adjacent attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack between the EMS and the FCT via the telemetry protocol.

An improper validation of certificate with host mismatch [CWE-297] vulnerability in FortiOS versions 6.4.6 and below may allow the connection to a malicious LDAP server via options in GUI, leading to disclosure of sensitive information, such as AD credentials.

The EU Technical Specifications for Digital COVID Certificates before 1.1 mishandle certificate governance. A non-production public key certificate could have been used in production.

The AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java, Python, C++ and Node.js appends a user supplied Certificate Authority (CA) to the root CAs instead of overriding it on macOS systems. Additionally, SNI validation is also not enabled when the CA has been “overridden”. TLS handshakes will thus succeed if the peer can be verified either from the user-supplied CA or the system’s default trust-store. Attackers with access to a host’s trust stores or are able to compromise a certificate authority already in the hos ... The AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java, Python, C++ and Node.js appends a user supplied Certificate Authority (CA) to the root CAs instead of overriding it on macOS systems. Additionally, SNI validation is also not enabled when the CA has been “overridden”. TLS handshakes will thus succeed if the peer can be verified either from the user-supplied CA or the system’s default trust-store. Attackers with access to a host’s trust stores or are able to compromise a certificate authority already in the host's trust store (note: the attacker must also be able to spoof DNS in this case) may be able to use this issue to bypass CA pinning. An attacker could then spoof the MQTT broker, and either drop traffic and/or respond with the attacker's data, but they would not be able to forward this data on to the MQTT broker because the attacker would still need the user's private keys to authenticate against the MQTT broker. The 'aws_tls_ctx_options_override_default_trust_store_*' function within the aws-c-io submodule has been updated to address this behavior. This issue affects: Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java versions prior to 1.5.0 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Python versions prior to 1.7.0 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for C++ versions prior to 1.14.0 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Node.js versions prior to 1.6.0 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS-C-IO 0.10.7 on macOS.

Show More

The AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java, Python, C++ and Node.js appends a user supplied Certificate Authority (CA) to the root CAs instead of overriding it on Unix systems. TLS handshakes will thus succeed if the peer can be verified either from the user-supplied CA or the system’s default trust-store. Attackers with access to a host’s trust stores or are able to compromise a certificate authority already in the host's trust store (note: the attacker must also be able to spoof DNS in this case) may ... The AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java, Python, C++ and Node.js appends a user supplied Certificate Authority (CA) to the root CAs instead of overriding it on Unix systems. TLS handshakes will thus succeed if the peer can be verified either from the user-supplied CA or the system’s default trust-store. Attackers with access to a host’s trust stores or are able to compromise a certificate authority already in the host's trust store (note: the attacker must also be able to spoof DNS in this case) may be able to use this issue to bypass CA pinning. An attacker could then spoof the MQTT broker, and either drop traffic and/or respond with the attacker's data, but they would not be able to forward this data on to the MQTT broker because the attacker would still need the user's private keys to authenticate against the MQTT broker. The 'aws_tls_ctx_options_override_default_trust_store_*' function within the aws-c-io submodule has been updated to override the default trust store. This corrects this issue. This issue affects: Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java versions prior to 1.5.0 on Linux/Unix. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Python versions prior to 1.6.1 on Linux/Unix. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for C++ versions prior to 1.12.7 on Linux/Unix. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Node.js versions prior to 1.5.3 on Linux/Unix. Amazon Web Services AWS-C-IO 0.10.4 on Linux/Unix.

Show More

Connections initialized by the AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java (versions prior to 1.4.2), Python (versions prior to 1.6.1), C++ (versions prior to 1.12.7) and Node.js (versions prior to 1.5.3) did not verify server certificate hostname during TLS handshake when overriding Certificate Authorities (CA) in their trust stores on MacOS. This issue has been addressed in aws-c-io submodule versions 0.10.5 onward. This issue affects: Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java versions prior to 1. ... Connections initialized by the AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java (versions prior to 1.4.2), Python (versions prior to 1.6.1), C++ (versions prior to 1.12.7) and Node.js (versions prior to 1.5.3) did not verify server certificate hostname during TLS handshake when overriding Certificate Authorities (CA) in their trust stores on MacOS. This issue has been addressed in aws-c-io submodule versions 0.10.5 onward. This issue affects: Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java versions prior to 1.4.2 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Python versions prior to 1.6.1 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for C++ versions prior to 1.12.7 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Node.js versions prior to 1.5.3 on macOS. Amazon Web Services AWS-C-IO 0.10.4 on macOS.

Show More

Connections initialized by the AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java (versions prior to 1.3.3), Python (versions prior to 1.5.18), C++ (versions prior to 1.12.7) and Node.js (versions prior to 1.5.1) did not verify server certificate hostname during TLS handshake when overriding Certificate Authorities (CA) in their trust stores on Windows. This issue has been addressed in aws-c-io submodule versions 0.9.13 onward. This issue affects: Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java versions prior to ... Connections initialized by the AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java (versions prior to 1.3.3), Python (versions prior to 1.5.18), C++ (versions prior to 1.12.7) and Node.js (versions prior to 1.5.1) did not verify server certificate hostname during TLS handshake when overriding Certificate Authorities (CA) in their trust stores on Windows. This issue has been addressed in aws-c-io submodule versions 0.9.13 onward. This issue affects: Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Java versions prior to 1.3.3 on Microsoft Windows. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Python versions prior to 1.5.18 on Microsoft Windows. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for C++ versions prior to 1.12.7 on Microsoft Windows. Amazon Web Services AWS IoT Device SDK v2 for Node.js versions prior to 1.5.3 on Microsoft Windows.

Show More

Adobe Experience Manager version 6.5.9.0 (and earlier) is affected by a improper certificate validation vulnerability in the cold storage component. If an attacker can achieve a man in the middle when the cold server establishes a new certificate, they would be able to harvest sensitive information.

Versions of Motorola Ready For and Motorola Device Help Android applications prior to 2021-04-08 do not properly verify the server certificate which could lead to the communication channel being accessible by an attacker.

A flaw was found in Cockpit in versions prior to 260 in the way it handles the certificate verification performed by the System Security Services Daemon (SSSD). This flaw allows client certificates to authenticate successfully, regardless of the Certificate Revocation List (CRL) configuration or the certificate status. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality.

It was found in OpenShift, before version 4.8, that the generated certificate for the in-cluster Service CA, incorrectly included additional certificates. The Service CA is automatically mounted into all pods, allowing them to safely connect to trusted in-cluster services that present certificates signed by the trusted Service CA. The incorrect inclusion of additional CAs in this certificate would allow an attacker that compromises any of the additional CAs to masquerade as a trusted in-cluster ... It was found in OpenShift, before version 4.8, that the generated certificate for the in-cluster Service CA, incorrectly included additional certificates. The Service CA is automatically mounted into all pods, allowing them to safely connect to trusted in-cluster services that present certificates signed by the trusted Service CA. The incorrect inclusion of additional CAs in this certificate would allow an attacker that compromises any of the additional CAs to masquerade as a trusted in-cluster service.

Show More

ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise t ... ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer.

Show More

OpenVPN 3 Core Library version 3.6 and 3.6.1 allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to bypass the certificate authentication by issuing an unrelated server certificate using the same hostname found in the verify-x509-name option in a client configuration.

The Motorola MH702x devices, prior to version 2.0.0.301, do not properly verify the server certificate during communication with the support server which could lead to the communication channel being accessible by an attacker.

The X509_V_FLAG_X509_STRICT flag enables additional security checks of the certificates present in a certificate chain. It is not set by default. Starting from OpenSSL version 1.1.1h a check to disallow certificates in the chain that have explicitly encoded elliptic curve parameters was added as an additional strict check. An error in the implementation of this check meant that the result of a previous check to confirm that certificates in the chain are valid CA certificates was overwritten. Thi ... The X509_V_FLAG_X509_STRICT flag enables additional security checks of the certificates present in a certificate chain. It is not set by default. Starting from OpenSSL version 1.1.1h a check to disallow certificates in the chain that have explicitly encoded elliptic curve parameters was added as an additional strict check. An error in the implementation of this check meant that the result of a previous check to confirm that certificates in the chain are valid CA certificates was overwritten. This effectively bypasses the check that non-CA certificates must not be able to issue other certificates. If a "purpose" has been configured then there is a subsequent opportunity for checks that the certificate is a valid CA. All of the named "purpose" values implemented in libcrypto perform this check. Therefore, where a purpose is set the certificate chain will still be rejected even when the strict flag has been used. A purpose is set by default in libssl client and server certificate verification routines, but it can be overridden or removed by an application. In order to be affected, an application must explicitly set the X509_V_FLAG_X509_STRICT verification flag and either not set a purpose for the certificate verification or, in the case of TLS client or server applications, override the default purpose. OpenSSL versions 1.1.1h and newer are affected by this issue. Users of these versions should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.1.1k. OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not impacted by this issue. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1k (Affected 1.1.1h-1.1.1j).

Show More

A flaw was found in keylime 5.8.1 and older. The issue in the Keylime agent and registrar code invalidates the cryptographic chain of trust from the Endorsement Key certificate to agent attestations.

DoTls13CertificateVerify in tls13.c in wolfSSL before 4.7.0 does not cease processing for certain anomalous peer behavior (sending an ED22519, ED448, ECC, or RSA signature without the corresponding certificate). The client side is affected because man-in-the-middle attackers can impersonate TLS 1.3 servers.

packages/wekan-ldap/server/ldap.js in Wekan before 4.87 can process connections even though they are not authorized by the Certification Authority trust store,