| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| OTP is a set of Erlang libraries, which consists of the Erlang runtime system, a number of ready-to-use components mainly written in Erlang, and a set of design principles for Erlang programs. A regression was introduced into the ssl application of OTP starting at OTP-25.3.2.8, OTP-26.2, and OTP-27.0, resulting in a server or client verifying the peer when incorrect extended key usage is presented (i.e., a server will verify a client if they have server auth ext key usage and vice versa). |
| Akka.NET is a .NET port of the Akka project from the Scala / Java community. In all versions of Akka.Remote from v1.2.0 to v1.5.51, TLS could be enabled via our `akka.remote.dot-netty.tcp` transport and this would correctly enforce private key validation on the server-side of inbound connections. Akka.Remote, however, never asked the outbound-connecting client to present ITS certificate - therefore it's possible for untrusted parties to connect to a private key'd Akka.NET cluster and begin communicating with it without any certificate. The issue here is that for certificate-based authentication to work properly, ensuring that all members of the Akka.Remote network are secured with the same private key, Akka.Remote needed to implement mutual TLS. This was not the case before Akka.NET v1.5.52. Those who run Akka.NET inside a private network that they fully control or who were never using TLS in the first place are now affected by the bug. However, those who use TLS to secure their networks must upgrade to Akka.NET V1.5.52 or later. One patch forces "fail fast" semantics if TLS is enabled but the private key is missing or invalid. Previous versions would only check that once connection attempts occurred. The second patch, a critical fix, enforces mutual TLS (mTLS) by default, so both parties must be keyed using the same certificate. As a workaround, avoid exposing the application publicly to avoid the vulnerability having a practical impact on one's application. However, upgrading to version 1.5.52 is still recommended by the maintainers. |
| An Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in the OPC-UA client and ANSL over TLS client used in Automation Studio versions before 6.5 could allow an unauthenticated attacker on the network to position themselves to intercept and interfere with data exchanges. |
| An issue was discovered in Samsung eMMC with KLMAG2GE4A and KLM8G1WEMB firmware. Code bypass through Electromagnetic Fault Injection allows an attacker to successfully authenticate and write to the RPMB (Replay Protected Memory Block) area without possessing secret information. |
| Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Milestone Integration Plugin (MIP) permits unauthenticated messages (e.g. alarm events) to be sent to the Plugin.
This issue effects Gallagher MIPS Plugin v4.0 prior to v4.0.32, all versions of v3.0 and prior. |
| The CleverControl employee monitoring software (v11.5.1041.6) fails to validate TLS server certificates during the installation process. The installer downloads and executes external components using curl.exe --insecure, enabling a man-in-the-middle attacker to deliver malicious files that are executed with SYSTEM privileges. This can lead to full remote code execution with administrative rights. No patch is available as the vendor has been unresponsive. It is assumed that previous versions are also affected, but this is not confirmed. |
| Issue summary: Clients using RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) to authenticate a
server may fail to notice that the server was not authenticated, because
handshakes don't abort as expected when the SSL_VERIFY_PEER verification mode
is set.
Impact summary: TLS and DTLS connections using raw public keys may be
vulnerable to man-in-middle attacks when server authentication failure is not
detected by clients.
RPKs are disabled by default in both TLS clients and TLS servers. The issue
only arises when TLS clients explicitly enable RPK use by the server, and the
server, likewise, enables sending of an RPK instead of an X.509 certificate
chain. The affected clients are those that then rely on the handshake to
fail when the server's RPK fails to match one of the expected public keys,
by setting the verification mode to SSL_VERIFY_PEER.
Clients that enable server-side raw public keys can still find out that raw
public key verification failed by calling SSL_get_verify_result(), and those
that do, and take appropriate action, are not affected. This issue was
introduced in the initial implementation of RPK support in OpenSSL 3.2.
The FIPS modules in 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. |
| BigFix Patch Download Plug-ins are affected by an insecure protocol support. The application can allow improper handling of SSL certificates validation. |
| Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.4.0, `pki.verifyCertificateChain()` does not enforce RFC 5280 basicConstraints requirements when an intermediate certificate lacks both the `basicConstraints` and `keyUsage` extensions. This allows any leaf certificate (without these extensions) to act as a CA and sign other certificates, which node-forge will accept as valid. Version 1.4.0 patches the issue. |
| Botan is a C++ cryptography library. Prior to version 3.11.0, during processing of an X.509 certificate path using name constraints which restrict the set of allowable DNS names, if no subject alternative name is defined in the end-entity certificate Botan would check that the CN was allowed by the DNS name constraints, even though this check is technically not required by RFC 5280. However this check failed to account for the possibility of a mixed-case CN. Thus a certificate with CN=Sub.EVIL.COM and no subject alternative name would bypasses an excludedSubtrees constraint for evil.com because the comparison is case-sensitive. This issue has been patched in version 3.11.0. |
| A certificate validation vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Autonomous Digital Experience Manager on Windows allows an unauthenticated attacker with adjacent network access to execute arbitrary code with NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM privileges. |
| dde-control-center is the control panel of DDE, the Deepin Desktop Environment. plugin-deepinid is a plugin in dde-control-center, which provides the deepinid cloud service. Prior to 6.1.80, plugin-deepinid is configured to skip TLS certificate verification when fetching the user's avatar from openapi.deepin.com or other providers. An MITM attacker could intercept the traffic, replace the avatar with a malicious or misleading image, and potentially identify the user by the avatar. This vulnerability is fixed in dde-control-center 6.1.80 and 5.9.9. |
| Bulwark Webmail is a self-hosted webmail client for Stalwart Mail Server. Prior to 1.4.11, S/MIME signature verification did not validate the certificate trust chain (checkChain: false). Any email signed with a self-signed or untrusted certificate was displayed as having a valid signature. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.4.11. |
| A vulnerability was identified in Juju from version 3.2.0 until 3.6.19 and from version 4.0 until 4.0.4, where the internal Dqlite database cluster fails to perform proper TLS client and server authentication. Specifically, the Juju controller's database endpoint does not validate client certificates when a new node attempts to join the cluster. An unauthenticated attacker with network reachability to the Juju controller's Dqlite port can exploit this flaw to join the database cluster. Once joined, the attacker gains full read and write access to the underlying database, allowing for total data compromise. |
| Akeo Consulting Rufus prior to version 2.17.1187 does not adequately validate the integrity of updates downloaded over HTTP, allowing an attacker to easily convince a user to execute arbitrary code |
| cryptography is a package designed to expose cryptographic primitives and recipes to Python developers. Prior to version 46.0.6, DNS name constraints were only validated against SANs within child certificates, and not the "peer name" presented during each validation. Consequently, cryptography would allow a peer named bar.example.com to validate against a wildcard leaf certificate for *.example.com, even if the leaf's parent certificate (or upwards) contained an excluded subtree constraint for bar.example.com. This issue has been patched in version 46.0.6. |
| A vulnerability in the configuration backup feature of Cisco Nexus Dashboard could allow an attacker who has the encryption password and access to Full or Config-only backup files to access sensitive information.
This vulnerability exists because authentication details are included in the encrypted backup files. An attacker with a valid backup file and encryption password from an affected device could decrypt the backup file. The attacker could then use the authentication details in the backup file to access internal-only APIs on the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as the root user. |
| Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Apache Airflow Provider for Databricks. Provider code did not validate certificates for connections to Databricks back-end which could result in a man-of-a-middle attack that traffic is intercepted and manipulated or credentials exfiltrated w/o notice.
This issue affects Apache Airflow Provider for Databricks: from 1.10.0 before 1.12.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.12.0, which fixes the issue. |
| This issue was addressed through improved state management. This issue is fixed in Safari 17.4, iOS 17.4 and iPadOS 17.4, macOS Sonoma 14.4. Private Browsing tabs may be accessed without authentication. |
| A vulnerability in the certificate validation logic may allow applications to accept untrusted or improperly validated server identities during TLS communication. An attacker in a privileged network position may be able to intercept or modify traffic if they can position themselves within the communication channel. Successful exploitation may compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability of application data. |
