Page 10 of 94 results (0.005 seconds)

CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 4%CPEs: 66EXPL: 2

09 May 2006 — Cisco PIX/ASA 7.1.x before 7.1(2) and 7.0.x before 7.0(5), PIX 6.3.x before 6.3.5(112), and FWSM 2.3.x before 2.3(4) and 3.x before 3.1(7), when used with Websense/N2H2, allows remote attackers to bypass HTTP access restrictions by splitting the GET method of an HTTP request into multiple packets, which prevents the request from being sent to Websense for inspection, aka bugs CSCsc67612, CSCsc68472, and CSCsd81734. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/27830 •

CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 1%CPEs: 156EXPL: 0

22 Dec 2005 — The Downloadable RADIUS ACLs feature in Cisco PIX and VPN 3000 concentrators, when creating an ACL on the Cisco Secure Access Control Server (CS ACS), generates a random internal name for an ACL that is also used as a hidden user name and password, which allows remote attackers to gain privileges by sniffing the username from the cleartext portion of a RADIUS session, then using the password to log in to another device that uses CS ACS. • http://secunia.com/advisories/18141 •

CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 1%CPEs: 3EXPL: 0

24 Nov 2005 — Race condition in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) 7.0(0), 7.0(2), and 7.0(4), when running with an Active/Standby configuration and when the failover LAN interface fails, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (standby firewall failure) by sending spoofed ARP responses from an IP address of an active firewall, which prevents the standby firewall from becoming active, aka "failover denial of service." Condición de carrera en Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) 7.0(0), 7.0(2), Y 7.0(... • http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=113199814008230&w=2 •

CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 9%CPEs: 138EXPL: 0

18 Nov 2005 — Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) implementation in multiple Cisco products allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reset) via certain malformed IKE packets, as demonstrated by the PROTOS ISAKMP Test Suite for IKEv1. NOTE: due to the lack of details in the Cisco advisory, it is unclear which of CVE-2005-3666, CVE-2005-3667, and/or CVE-2005-3668 this issue applies to. • http://jvn.jp/niscc/NISCC-273756/index.html •