CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 13EXPL: 0CVE-2018-16395 – ruby: OpenSSL::X509:: Name equality check does not work correctly
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-16395
An issue was discovered in the OpenSSL library in Ruby before 2.3.8, 2.4.x before 2.4.5, 2.5.x before 2.5.2, and 2.6.x before 2.6.0-preview3. When two OpenSSL::X509::Name objects are compared using ==, depending on the ordering, non-equal objects may return true. When the first argument is one character longer than the second, or the second argument contains a character that is one less than a character in the same position of the first argument, the result of == will be true. This could be leveraged to create an illegitimate certificate that may be accepted as legitimate and then used in signing or encryption operations. Se ha descubierto un problema en la biblioteca OpenSSL en Ruby, en versiones anteriores a la 2.3.8, versiones 2.4.x anteriores a la 2.4.5, versiones 2.5.x anteriores a la 2.5.2 y versiones 2.6.x anteriores a la 2.6.0-preview3. • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-07/msg00036.html http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1042105 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3729 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3730 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3731 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3738 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1948 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2565 https://hackerone.com/reports/387250 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts • CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation •
CVSS: 5.3EPSS: 2%CPEs: 102EXPL: 0CVE-2017-3735 – openssl: Malformed X.509 IPAdressFamily could cause OOB read
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-3735
While parsing an IPAddressFamily extension in an X.509 certificate, it is possible to do a one-byte overread. This would result in an incorrect text display of the certificate. This bug has been present since 2006 and is present in all versions of OpenSSL before 1.0.2m and 1.1.0g. Al analizar una extensión IPAddressFamily en un certificado X.509, es posible realizar una sobrelectura de un bit. Esto tendría como resultado que el texto del certificado se muestre de forma incorrecta. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2018-3678067.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2018-4258247.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2018-4428296.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100515 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1039726 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3221 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3505 https://cert-portal.siem • CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 3EXPL: 1CVE-2016-7798
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-7798
The openssl gem for Ruby uses the same initialization vector (IV) in GCM Mode (aes-*-gcm) when the IV is set before the key, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to bypass the encryption protection mechanism. La openssl gem para Ruby utiliza el mismo vector de inicialización (IV) en el modo GCM (aes - * - gcm) cuando el IV se establece en versiones anteriores a la clave, lo que facilita que los atacantes dependiendo del contexto eludan el mecanismo de protección del cifrado. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/19/9 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/30/6 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/10/01/2 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93031 https://github.com/ruby/openssl/commit/8108e0a6db133f3375608303fdd2083eb5115062 https://github.com/ruby/openssl/issues/49 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2018/07/msg00012.html https://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3966 • CWE-326: Inadequate Encryption Strength •
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: 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 •