| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| IBM Security Verify Access Docker 10.0.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 197969 |
| IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.0 through 2.3.3.3 Interim Fix 1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 197498. |
| IBM Security Verify Bridge uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196617. |
| IBM Security Guardium 11.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196280. |
| IBM Security Verify Information Queue 1.0.6 and 1.0.7 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196184. |
| IBM QRadar SIEM 7.3 and 7.4 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196074. |
| IBM Guardium Data Encryption (GDE) 3.0.0.3 and 4.0.0.4 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 195711. |
| IBM Cloud Pak for Applications 4.3 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 195361. |
| IBM Cloud Pak for Applications 4.3 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 195031. |
| IBM QRadar SIEM 7.3.0 to 7.3.3 Patch 8 and 7.4.0 to 7.4.3 GA uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 194448. |
| A flaw was found in Nettle in versions before 3.7.2, where several Nettle signature verification functions (GOST DSA, EDDSA & ECDSA) result in the Elliptic Curve Cryptography point (ECC) multiply function being called with out-of-range scalers, possibly resulting in incorrect results. This flaw allows an attacker to force an invalid signature, causing an assertion failure or possible validation. The highest threat to this vulnerability is to confidentiality, integrity, as well as system availability. |
| The use of multiple hard-coded cryptographic keys in cSRX Series software in Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an attacker to take control of any instance of a cSRX deployment through device management services. This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS on cSRX Series: All versions prior to 20.2R3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R2; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R2. |
| Firmware developed by Shenzhen Hichip Vision Technology (V6 through V20), as used by many different vendors in millions of Internet of Things devices, suffers from cryptographic issues that allow remote attackers to access user session data, as demonstrated by eavesdropping on user video/audio streams, capturing credentials, and compromising devices. This affects products marketed under the following brand names: Accfly, Alptop, Anlink, Besdersec, BOAVISION, COOAU, CPVAN, Ctronics, D3D Security, Dericam, Elex System, Elite Security, ENSTER, ePGes, Escam, FLOUREON, GENBOLT, Hongjingtian (HJT), ICAMI, Iegeek, Jecurity, Jennov, KKMoon, LEFTEK, Loosafe, Luowice, Nesuniq, Nettoly, ProElite, QZT, Royallite, SDETER, SV3C, SY2L, Tenvis, ThinkValue, TOMLOV, TPTEK, WGCC, and ZILINK. |
| CS2 Network P2P through 3.x, as used in millions of Internet of Things devices, suffers from an information exposure flaw that exposes user session data to supernodes in the network, as demonstrated by passively eavesdropping on user video/audio streams, capturing credentials, and compromising devices. |
| In Apache NiFi 1.2.0 to 1.11.4, the NiFi UI and API were protected by mandating TLS v1.2, as well as listening connections established by processors like ListenHTTP, HandleHttpRequest, etc. However intracluster communication such as cluster request replication, Site-to-Site, and load balanced queues continued to support TLS v1.0 or v1.1. |
| ARRIS TG1692A devices allow remote attackers to discover the administrator login name and password by reading the /login page and performing base64 decoding. |
| In GolfBuddy Course Manager 1.1, passwords are sent (with base64 encoding) via a GET request. |
| FusionCompute versions 8.0.0 have an insecure encryption algorithm vulnerability. Attackers with high permissions can exploit this vulnerability to cause information leak. |
| A vulnerability in the in-band key negotiation exists in the AWS S3 Crypto SDK for GoLang versions prior to V2. An attacker with write access to the targeted bucket can change the encryption algorithm of an object in the bucket, which can then allow them to change AES-GCM to AES-CTR. Using this in combination with a decryption oracle can reveal the authentication key used by AES-GCM as decrypting the GMAC tag leaves the authentication key recoverable as an algebraic equation. It is recommended to update your SDK to V2 or later, and re-encrypt your files. |
| A padding oracle vulnerability exists in the AWS S3 Crypto SDK for GoLang versions prior to V2. The SDK allows users to encrypt files with AES-CBC without computing a Message Authentication Code (MAC), which then allows an attacker who has write access to the target's S3 bucket and can observe whether or not an endpoint with access to the key can decrypt a file, they can reconstruct the plaintext with (on average) 128*length (plaintext) queries to the endpoint, by exploiting CBC's ability to manipulate the bytes of the next block and PKCS5 padding errors. It is recommended to update your SDK to V2 or later, and re-encrypt your files. |
