CVSS: 5.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 7EXPL: 0CVE-2016-7056 – openssl: ECDSA P-256 timing attack key recovery
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-7056
A timing attack flaw was found in OpenSSL 1.0.1u and before that could allow a malicious user with local access to recover ECDSA P-256 private keys. Se ha encontrado un error de ataque de sincronización en OpenSSL, en versiones 1.0.1u y anteriores, que podría permitir que un usuario malicioso con acceso local recupere claves privadas ECDSA P-256 A timing attack flaw was found in OpenSSL that could allow a malicious user with local access to recover ECDSA P-256 private keys. • http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-1415.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95375 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037575 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1413 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1414 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1801 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1802 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2016-7056 https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1195 https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/5.9/ • CWE-320: Key Management Errors CWE-385: Covert Timing Channel •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 21EXPL: 0CVE-2017-3732 – BN_mod_exp may produce incorrect results on x86_64
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-3732
There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 before 1.0.2k and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only accessible to a limited number of attackers. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2017-3236622.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95814 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037717 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2185 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2186 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2187 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2 • CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 95%CPEs: 18EXPL: 2CVE-2017-3730 – Bad (EC)DHE parameters cause a client crash
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-3730
In OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d, if a malicious server supplies bad parameters for a DHE or ECDHE key exchange then this can result in the client attempting to dereference a NULL pointer leading to a client crash. This could be exploited in a Denial of Service attack. En OpenSSL versión 1.1.0 anterior a 1.1.0d, si un servidor malicioso suministra parámetros incorrectos para un intercambio de claves DHE o ECDHE, entonces esto puede resultar en que el cliente intente desreferenciar un puntero NULL que conduce a un bloqueo del cliente. Esto podría ser explotado en un ataque de denegación de servicio. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/41192 https://github.com/guidovranken/CVE-2017-3730 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95812 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037717 https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/efbe126e3ebb9123ac9d058aa2bb044261342aaa https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201702-07 https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en • CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 4%CPEs: 22EXPL: 0CVE-2017-3731 – Truncated packet could crash via OOB read
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-3731
If an SSL/TLS server or client is running on a 32-bit host, and a specific cipher is being used, then a truncated packet can cause that server or client to perform an out-of-bounds read, usually resulting in a crash. For OpenSSL 1.1.0, the crash can be triggered when using CHACHA20/POLY1305; users should upgrade to 1.1.0d. For Openssl 1.0.2, the crash can be triggered when using RC4-MD5; users who have not disabled that algorithm should update to 1.0.2k. Si un servidor o cliente SSL/TLS se ejecuta en un host de 32 bits y se utiliza un cifrador específico, un paquete truncado puede dar lugar a que el servidor o el cliente realicen una lectura fuera de límites que, normalmente, provoca un cierre inesperado En OpenSSL 1.1.0, el cierre inesperado se puede desencadenar cuando se usa CHACHA20/POLY1305 An integer underflow leading to an out of bounds read flaw was found in OpenSSL. A remote attacker could possibly use this flaw to crash a 32-bit TLS/SSL server or client using OpenSSL if it used the RC4-MD5 cipher suite. • http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0286.html http://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3773 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2017-3236622.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95813 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037717 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2185 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018 • CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 89%CPEs: 3EXPL: 1CVE-2016-7054 – ChaCha20/Poly1305 heap-buffer-overflow
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-7054
In OpenSSL 1.1.0 before 1.1.0c, TLS connections using *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 ciphersuites are susceptible to a DoS attack by corrupting larger payloads. This can result in an OpenSSL crash. This issue is not considered to be exploitable beyond a DoS. En OpenSSL 1.1.0 anterior a 1.1.0c, las conexiones TLS que utilizan *-CHACHA20-POLY1305 ciphersuites pueden ser víctimas de una denegación de servicio si se corrompe el payload. Esto puede derivar la caída de OpenSSL. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/40899 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/94238 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037261 https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en_US&docId=emr_na-hpesbhf03744en_us https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20161110.txt • CWE-284: Improper Access Control •