| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Dell PowerScale OneFS, versions prior to 9.10.1.3 and versions 9.11.0.0 through 9.12.0.0, contains a use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Information disclosure. |
| Inappropriate implementation in App-Bound Encryption in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 142.0.7444.59 allowed a local attacker to obtain potentially sensitive information from process memory via a malicious file. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| A vulnerability in the MIT Kerberos implementation allows GSSAPI-protected messages using RC4-HMAC-MD5 to be spoofed due to weaknesses in the MD5 checksum design. If RC4 is preferred over stronger encryption types, an attacker could exploit MD5 collisions to forge message integrity codes. This may lead to unauthorized message tampering. |
| curl's code for managing SSH connections when SFTP was done using the wolfSSH
powered backend was flawed and missed host verification mechanisms.
This prevents curl from detecting MITM attackers and more. |
| The Download Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access due to a hardcoded Cron key used in the deleteExpired() and clearTempDataCPCron() functions in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.30. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trigger these cron jobs leading to deletion of expired posts and clearing cache. |
| 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. |
| A security vulnerability has been detected in PHPGurukul News Portal 1.0. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /onps/settings.py. Such manipulation of the argument SECRET_KEY leads to use of hard-coded cryptographic key
. The attack may be performed from remote. The attack requires a high level of complexity. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. |
| Multiple Devices are Sharing the Same Secrets for SDKSocket (TCP/5000).This issue affects BLU-IC2: through 1.19.5; BLU-IC4: through 1.19.5. |
| DNN (aka DotNetNuke) 9.2 through 9.2.1 uses a weak encryption algorithm to protect input parameters. |
| DNN (aka DotNetNuke) 9.2 through 9.2.2 uses a weak encryption algorithm to protect input parameters. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2018-15811. |
| Non-Compliant TLS Configuration.This issue affects BLU-IC2: through 1.19.5; BLU-IC4: through 1.19.5 . |
| Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric GX Works3 versions from 1.000A to 1.095Z, and Motion Control Setting(GX Works3 related software) versions from 1.000A to 1.065T allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to disclose or tamper with sensitive information. As a result, unauthenticated attackers may obtain information about project files illegally. |
| Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Mitsubishi Electric GX Works3 versions from 1.000A to 1.090U, GT Designer3 Version1 (GOT2000) versions from 1.122C to 1.290C, Motion Control Setting(GX Works3 related software) versions from 1.035M to 1.042U, and MT Works2 versions from 1.100E to 1.200J allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to disclose sensitive information. As a result, unauthenticated users may view programs and project files or execute programs illegally. |
| A flaw was found in GnuTLS. The Minerva attack is a cryptographic vulnerability that exploits deterministic behavior in systems like GnuTLS, leading to side-channel leaks. In specific scenarios, such as when using the GNUTLS_PRIVKEY_FLAG_REPRODUCIBLE flag, it can result in a noticeable step in nonce size from 513 to 512 bits, exposing a potential timing side-channel. |
| A vulnerability was found in IROAD Dash Cam FX2 up to 20250308. It has been declared as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /etc/passwd of the component Password Hash Handler. The manipulation leads to password hash with insufficient computational effort. Access to the local network is required for this attack. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| Gladinet CentreStack through 16.1.10296.56315 (fixed in 16.4.10315.56368) has a deserialization vulnerability due to the CentreStack portal's hardcoded machineKey use, as exploited in the wild in March 2025. This enables threat actors (who know the machineKey) to serialize a payload for server-side deserialization to achieve remote code execution. NOTE: a CentreStack admin can manually delete the machineKey defined in portal\web.config. |
| Primetek Primefaces 5.x is vulnerable to a weak encryption flaw resulting in remote code execution |
| GE Multilink ML800, ML1200, ML1600, and ML2400 switches with firmware 4.2.1 and earlier and Multilink ML810, ML3000, and ML3100 switches with firmware 5.2.0 and earlier use the same RSA private key across different customers' installations, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain the cleartext content of network traffic by reading this key from a firmware image and then sniffing the network. |
| This issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0.
Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes.
When spark.network.crypto.enabled is set to true (it is set to false by default), but spark.network.crypto.cipher is not explicitly configured, Spark defaults to AES in CTR mode (AES/CTR/NoPadding), which provides encryption without authentication.
This vulnerability allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to modify encrypted RPC traffic undetected by flipping bits in ciphertext, potentially compromising heartbeat messages or application data and affecting the integrity of Spark workflows.
To mitigate this issue, users should either configure spark.network.crypto.cipher to AES/GCM/NoPadding to enable authenticated encryption or
enable SSL encryption by setting spark.ssl.enabled to true, which provides stronger transport security. |
| A flaw was found in dnsmasq before version 2.83. When getting a reply from a forwarded query, dnsmasq checks in forward.c:reply_query(), which is the forwarded query that matches the reply, by only using a weak hash of the query name. Due to the weak hash (CRC32 when dnsmasq is compiled without DNSSEC, SHA-1 when it is) this flaw allows an off-path attacker to find several different domains all having the same hash, substantially reducing the number of attempts they would have to perform to forge a reply and get it accepted by dnsmasq. This is in contrast with RFC5452, which specifies that the query name is one of the attributes of a query that must be used to match a reply. This flaw could be abused to perform a DNS Cache Poisoning attack. If chained with CVE-2020-25684 the attack complexity of a successful attack is reduced. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity. |
