3 results (0.014 seconds)

CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 96%CPEs: 79EXPL: 1

The SSH transport protocol with certain OpenSSH extensions, found in OpenSSH before 9.6 and other products, allows remote attackers to bypass integrity checks such that some packets are omitted (from the extension negotiation message), and a client and server may consequently end up with a connection for which some security features have been downgraded or disabled, aka a Terrapin attack. This occurs because the SSH Binary Packet Protocol (BPP), implemented by these extensions, mishandles the handshake phase and mishandles use of sequence numbers. For example, there is an effective attack against SSH's use of ChaCha20-Poly1305 (and CBC with Encrypt-then-MAC). The bypass occurs in chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com and (if CBC is used) the -etm@openssh.com MAC algorithms. This also affects Maverick Synergy Java SSH API before 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT, Dropbear through 2022.83, Ssh before 5.1.1 in Erlang/OTP, PuTTY before 0.80, AsyncSSH before 2.14.2, golang.org/x/crypto before 0.17.0, libssh before 0.10.6, libssh2 through 1.11.0, Thorn Tech SFTP Gateway before 3.4.6, Tera Term before 5.1, Paramiko before 3.4.0, jsch before 0.2.15, SFTPGo before 2.5.6, Netgate pfSense Plus through 23.09.1, Netgate pfSense CE through 2.7.2, HPN-SSH through 18.2.0, ProFTPD before 1.3.8b (and before 1.3.9rc2), ORYX CycloneSSH before 2.3.4, NetSarang XShell 7 before Build 0144, CrushFTP before 10.6.0, ConnectBot SSH library before 2.2.22, Apache MINA sshd through 2.11.0, sshj through 0.37.0, TinySSH through 20230101, trilead-ssh2 6401, LANCOM LCOS and LANconfig, FileZilla before 3.66.4, Nova before 11.8, PKIX-SSH before 14.4, SecureCRT before 9.4.3, Transmit5 before 5.10.4, Win32-OpenSSH before 9.5.0.0p1-Beta, WinSCP before 6.2.2, Bitvise SSH Server before 9.32, Bitvise SSH Client before 9.33, KiTTY through 0.76.1.13, the net-ssh gem 7.2.0 for Ruby, the mscdex ssh2 module before 1.15.0 for Node.js, the thrussh library before 0.35.1 for Rust, and the Russh crate before 0.40.2 for Rust. • http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/176280/Terrapin-SSH-Connection-Weakening.html http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Mar/21 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/18/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/19/5 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/20/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/06/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/04/17/8 https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2023-48 • CWE-222: Truncation of Security-relevant Information CWE-354: Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value •

CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 81%CPEs: 444EXPL: 7

The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. El protocolo HTTP/2 permite una denegación de servicio (consumo de recursos del servidor) porque la cancelación de solicitudes puede restablecer muchas transmisiones rápidamente, como se explotó en la naturaleza entre agosto y octubre de 2023. A flaw was found in handling multiplexed streams in the HTTP/2 protocol. A client can repeatedly make a request for a new multiplex stream and immediately send an RST_STREAM frame to cancel it. This creates extra work for the server setting up and tearing down the streams while not hitting any server-side limit for the maximum number of active streams per connection, resulting in a denial of service due to server resource consumption. • https://github.com/imabee101/CVE-2023-44487 https://github.com/studiogangster/CVE-2023-44487 https://github.com/bcdannyboy/CVE-2023-44487 https://github.com/sigridou/CVE-2023-44487- https://github.com/ByteHackr/CVE-2023-44487 https://github.com/ReToCode/golang-CVE-2023-44487 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/10/13/4 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/10/13/9 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/10/18/4 http://www. • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption •

CVSS: 6.1EPSS: 0%CPEs: 2EXPL: 0

In Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security (RHACS), it was found that some security related HTTP headers were missing, allowing an attacker to exploit this with a clickjacking attack. An attacker could exploit this by convincing a valid RHACS user to visit an attacker-controlled web page, that deceptively points to valid RHACS endpoints, hijacking the user's account permissions to perform other actions. En Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security (RHACS), se descubrió que faltaban algunos encabezados HTTP relacionados con la seguridad, lo que permitía a un atacante explotar esto con un ataque de clickjacking. Un atacante podría aprovechar esto convenciendo a un usuario válido de RHACS para que visite una página web controlada por el atacante, que apunta engañosamente a endpoints de RHACS válidos, secuestrando los permisos de la cuenta del usuario para realizar otras acciones. • https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2023:5206 https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2023-4958 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990363 • CWE-1021: Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames •