| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| keypair is a a RSA PEM key generator written in javascript. keypair implements a lot of cryptographic primitives on its own or by borrowing from other libraries where possible, including node-forge. An issue was discovered where this library was generating identical RSA keys used in SSH. This would mean that the library is generating identical P, Q (and thus N) values which, in practical terms, is impossible with RSA-2048 keys. Generating identical values, repeatedly, usually indicates an issue with poor random number generation, or, poor handling of CSPRNG output. Issue 1: Poor random number generation (`GHSL-2021-1012`). The library does not rely entirely on a platform provided CSPRNG, rather, it uses it's own counter-based CMAC approach. Where things go wrong is seeding the CMAC implementation with "true" random data in the function `defaultSeedFile`. In order to seed the AES-CMAC generator, the library will take two different approaches depending on the JavaScript execution environment. In a browser, the library will use [`window.crypto.getRandomValues()`](https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L971). However, in a nodeJS execution environment, the `window` object is not defined, so it goes down a much less secure solution, also of which has a bug in it. It does look like the library tries to use node's CSPRNG when possible unfortunately, it looks like the `crypto` object is null because a variable was declared with the same name, and set to `null`. So the node CSPRNG path is never taken. However, when `window.crypto.getRandomValues()` is not available, a Lehmer LCG random number generator is used to seed the CMAC counter, and the LCG is seeded with `Math.random`. While this is poor and would likely qualify in a security bug in itself, it does not explain the extreme frequency in which duplicate keys occur. The main flaw: The output from the Lehmer LCG is encoded incorrectly. The specific [line][https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L1008] with the flaw is: `b.putByte(String.fromCharCode(next & 0xFF))` The [definition](https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L350-L352) of `putByte` is `util.ByteBuffer.prototype.putByte = function(b) {this.data += String.fromCharCode(b);};`. Simplified, this is `String.fromCharCode(String.fromCharCode(next & 0xFF))`. The double `String.fromCharCode` is almost certainly unintentional and the source of weak seeding. Unfortunately, this does not result in an error. Rather, it results most of the buffer containing zeros. Since we are masking with 0xFF, we can determine that 97% of the output from the LCG are converted to zeros. The only outputs that result in meaningful values are outputs 48 through 57, inclusive. The impact is that each byte in the RNG seed has a 97% chance of being 0 due to incorrect conversion. When it is not, the bytes are 0 through 9. In summary, there are three immediate concerns: 1. The library has an insecure random number fallback path. Ideally the library would require a strong CSPRNG instead of attempting to use a LCG and `Math.random`. 2. The library does not correctly use a strong random number generator when run in NodeJS, even though a strong CSPRNG is available. 3. The fallback path has an issue in the implementation where a majority of the seed data is going to effectively be zero. Due to the poor random number generation, keypair generates RSA keys that are relatively easy to guess. This could enable an attacker to decrypt confidential messages or gain authorized access to an account belonging to the victim. |
| In RIOT-OS 2021.01, nonce reuse in 802.15.4 encryption in the ieee820154_security component allows attackers to break encryption by triggering reboots. |
| showdoc is vulnerable to Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) |
| yii2 is vulnerable to Use of Predictable Algorithm in Random Number Generator |
| yii2 is vulnerable to Use of Predictable Algorithm in Random Number Generator |
| showdoc is vulnerable to Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) |
| A flaw was found in github.com/satori/go.uuid in versions from commit 0ef6afb2f6cdd6cdaeee3885a95099c63f18fc8c to d91630c8510268e75203009fe7daf2b8e1d60c45. Due to insecure randomness in the g.rand.Read function the generated UUIDs are predictable for an attacker. |
| A flaw was found in libtpms in versions before 0.8.0. The TPM 2 implementation returns 2048 bit keys with ~1984 bit strength due to a bug in the TCG specification. The bug is in the key creation algorithm in RsaAdjustPrimeCandidate(), which is called before the prime number check. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality. |
| A flaw was found in libtpms in versions before 0.8.2. The commonly used integration of libtpms with OpenSSL contained a vulnerability related to the returned IV (initialization vector) when certain symmetric ciphers were used. Instead of returning the last IV it returned the initial IV to the caller, thus weakening the subsequent encryption and decryption steps. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality. |
| A cryptographically weak pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) is used during authentication to the Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS web interface. This enables an authenticated attacker, with the capability to observe their own authentication secrets over a long duration on the PAN-OS appliance, to impersonate another authenticated web interface administrator's session. This issue impacts: PAN-OS 8.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 8.1.19; PAN-OS 9.0 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.0.14; PAN-OS 9.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.1.10; PAN-OS 10.0 versions earlier than PAN-OS 10.0.4. PAN-OS 10.1 versions are not impacted. |
| Invision Community (aka IPS Community Suite or IP-Board) before 4.6.5.1 allows reflected XSS because the filenames of uploaded files become predictable through a brute-force attack against the PHP mt_rand function. |
| reNgine through 0.5 relies on a predictable directory name. |
| OX App Suite through 7.10.5 allows XSS via JavaScript code in an anchor HTML comment within truncated e-mail, because there is a predictable UUID with HTML transformation results. |
| In JetBrains YouTrack before 2021.2.16363, an insecure PRNG was used. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in LOGO! CMR2020 (All versions < V2.2), LOGO! CMR2040 (All versions < V2.2), SIMATIC RTU3010C (All versions < V4.0.9), SIMATIC RTU3030C (All versions < V4.0.9), SIMATIC RTU3031C (All versions < V4.0.9), SIMATIC RTU3041C (All versions < V4.0.9). The underlying TCP/IP stack does not properly calculate the random numbers used as ISN (Initial Sequence Numbers). An adjacent attacker with network access to the LAN interface could interfere with traffic, spoof the connection and gain access to sensitive information. |
| Dell Networking X-Series firmware versions prior to 3.0.1.8 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker may potentially hijack a session and access the webserver by forging the session ID. |
| Dell VNX2 OE for File versions 8.1.21.266 and earlier, contain an authentication bypass vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker may exploit this vulnerability by forging a cookie to login as any user. |
| The use of a cryptographically weak pseudo-random number generator in the password reset feature of FortiPortal before 6.0.6 may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to predict parts of or the whole newly generated password within a given time frame. |
| An improper authentication vulnerability in FortiMail before 7.0.1 may allow a remote attacker to efficiently guess one administrative account's authentication token by means of the observation of certain system's properties. |
| Telenot CompasX versions prior to 32.0 use a weak seed for random number generation leading to predictable AES keys used in the NFC tags used for local authorization of users. This may lead to total loss of trustworthiness of the installation. |
