CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 75EXPL: 1CVE-2020-1971 – EDIPARTYNAME NULL pointer dereference
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2020-1971
The X.509 GeneralName type is a generic type for representing different types of names. One of those name types is known as EDIPartyName. OpenSSL provides a function GENERAL_NAME_cmp which compares different instances of a GENERAL_NAME to see if they are equal or not. This function behaves incorrectly when both GENERAL_NAMEs contain an EDIPARTYNAME. A NULL pointer dereference and a crash may occur leading to a possible denial of service attack. • https://github.com/MBHudson/CVE-2020-1971 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/09/14/2 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=2154ab83e14ede338d2ede9bbe5cdfce5d5a6c9e https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=f960d81215ebf3f65e03d4d5d857fb9b666d6920 https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44676 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r63c6f2dd363d9b514d0a4bcf624580616a679898cc14c109a49b7 • CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 1%CPEs: 180EXPL: 0CVE-2019-1559 – 0-byte record padding oracle
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-1559
If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. If the application then behaves differently based on that in a way that is detectable to the remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Stitched ciphersuites are optimised implementations of certain commonly used ciphersuites. Also the application must call SSL_shutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-03/msg00041.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-04/msg00019.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-04/msg00046.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-04/msg00047.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-05/msg00049.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-06/msg00080.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/107174 https://access. • CWE-203: Observable Discrepancy CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 44EXPL: 0CVE-2018-0734 – Timing attack against DSA
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-0734
The OpenSSL DSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1a (Affected 1.1.1). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0j (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0i). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2q (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2p). • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-06/msg00030.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-07/msg00056.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/105758 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2304 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3700 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3932 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3933 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3935 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba • CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm CWE-385: Covert Timing Channel •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 47EXPL: 0CVE-2018-0735 – Timing attack against ECDSA signature generation
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-0735
The OpenSSL ECDSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0j (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0i). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1a (Affected 1.1.1). Se ha demostrado que el algoritmo de firmas ECDSA en OpenSSL es vulnerable a un ataque de sincronización de canal lateral. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/105750 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041986 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3700 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=56fb454d281a023b3f950d969693553d3f3ceea1 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=b1d6d55ece1c26fa2829e2b819b038d7b6d692b4 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2018/11/msg00024.html https://nodejs.org/en/blog/vulnerability/november-2018-security-releases https://security.netapp.com/advisor • CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm CWE-385: Covert Timing Channel •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 52%CPEs: 87EXPL: 1CVE-2016-8610 – SSL/TLS: Malformed plain-text ALERT packets could cause remote DoS
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-8610
A denial of service flaw was found in OpenSSL 0.9.8, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 through 1.0.2h, and 1.1.0 in the way the TLS/SSL protocol defined processing of ALERT packets during a connection handshake. A remote attacker could use this flaw to make a TLS/SSL server consume an excessive amount of CPU and fail to accept connections from other clients. Se ha encontrado un fallo de denegación de servicio en OpenSSL en las versiones 0.9.8, 1.0.1, 1.0.2 hasta la 1.0.2h y la 1.1.0 en la forma en la que el protocolo TLS/SSL definió el procesamiento de paquetes ALERT durante una negociación de conexión. Un atacante remoto podría emplear este fallo para hacer que un servidor TLS/SSL consuma una cantidad excesiva de recursos de CPU y fracase a la hora de aceptar conexiones de otros clientes. A denial of service flaw was found in the way the TLS/SSL protocol defined processing of ALERT packets during a connection handshake. • https://github.com/cujanovic/CVE-2016-8610-PoC http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0286.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0574.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-1415.html http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-1659.html http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q4/224 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93841 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037084 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1413 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:1414 • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption •