CVSS: 7.4EPSS: 0%CPEs: 56EXPL: 0CVE-2021-3712 – Read buffer overruns processing ASN.1 strings
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-3712
ASN.1 strings are represented internally within OpenSSL as an ASN1_STRING structure which contains a buffer holding the string data and a field holding the buffer length. This contrasts with normal C strings which are repesented as a buffer for the string data which is terminated with a NUL (0) byte. Although not a strict requirement, ASN.1 strings that are parsed using OpenSSL's own "d2i" functions (and other similar parsing functions) as well as any string whose value has been set with the ASN1_STRING_set() function will additionally NUL terminate the byte array in the ASN1_STRING structure. However, it is possible for applications to directly construct valid ASN1_STRING structures which do not NUL terminate the byte array by directly setting the "data" and "length" fields in the ASN1_STRING array. This can also happen by using the ASN1_STRING_set0() function. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/08/26/2 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-244969.pdf https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=94d23fcff9b2a7a8368dfe52214d5c2569882c11 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=ccb0a11145ee72b042d10593a64eaf9e8a55ec12 https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=SB10366 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r18995de860f0e63635f3008f • CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read •
CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 6%CPEs: 42EXPL: 0CVE-2021-3711 – SM2 Decryption Buffer Overflow
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-3711
In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/08/26/2 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=59f5e75f3bced8fc0e130d72a3f582cf7b480b46 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r18995de860f0e63635f3008fd2a6aca82394249476d21691e7c59c9e%40%3Cdev.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rad5d9f83f0d11fb3f8bb148d179b8a9ad7c6a17f18d70e5805a713d1%40%3Cdev.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202209-02 https://security.ge • CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write •
CVSS: 5.3EPSS: 10%CPEs: 42EXPL: 0CVE-2021-33037 – Incorrect Transfer-Encoding handling with HTTP/1.0
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-33037
Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding. Apache Tomcat versiones 10.0.0-M1 hasta 10.0.6, versiones 9.0.0.M1 hasta 9.0.46 y versiones 8.5.0 hasta 8.5.66, no analizaban correctamente el encabezado de petición HTTP transfer-encoding en algunas circunstancias, conllevando a la posibilidad de contrabando de peticiones cuando se usaba con un proxy inverso. Específicamente: - Tomcat ignoraba incorrectamente el encabezado de codificación de transferencia si el cliente declaraba que sólo aceptaría una respuesta HTTP/1.0; - Tomcat honraba la codificación de identificación; y - Tomcat no se aseguraba de que, si estaba presente, la codificación en trozos fuera la codificación final • https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=SB10366 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r290aee55b72811fd19e75ac80f6143716c079170c5671b96932ed44b%40%3Ccommits.tomee.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r40f921575aee8d7d34e53182f862c45cbb8f3d898c9d4e865c2ec262%40%3Ccommits.tomee.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r612a79269b0d5e5780c62dfd34286a8037232fec0bc6f1a7e60c9381%40%3Cannounce.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc6ef52453bb996a98cb45442871a1db56b7c349939e45d829bf9ae37%40%3Ccommits.tomee.apache.org%3E https:/ • CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') •
CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 49EXPL: 0CVE-2021-22118 – spring-web: (re)creating the temporary storage directory could result in a privilege escalation within WebFlux application
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-22118
In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.15 and versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.7, a WebFlux application is vulnerable to a privilege escalation: by (re)creating the temporary storage directory, a locally authenticated malicious user can read or modify files that have been uploaded to the WebFlux application, or overwrite arbitrary files with multipart request data. En Spring Framework, versiones 5.2.x anteriores a 5.2.15 y versiones 5.3.x anteriores a 5.3.7, una aplicación WebFlux es vulnerable a una escalada de privilegios: al (re)crear el directorio de almacenamiento temporal, un usuario malicioso autenticado localmente puede leer o modificar archivos que han sido subidos a la aplicación WebFlux, o sobrescribir archivos arbitrarios con petición de datos de múltiples partes • https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20210713-0005 https://tanzu.vmware.com/security/cve-2021-22118 https://www.oracle.com//security-alerts/cpujul2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2021.html https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-22118 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974854 • CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management CWE-281: Improper Preservation of Permissions CWE-668: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere •
CVSS: 7.4EPSS: 0%CPEs: 56EXPL: 0CVE-2021-3450 – CA certificate check bypass with X509_V_FLAG_X509_STRICT
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-3450
The X509_V_FLAG_X509_STRICT flag enables additional security checks of the certificates present in a certificate chain. It is not set by default. Starting from OpenSSL version 1.1.1h a check to disallow certificates in the chain that have explicitly encoded elliptic curve parameters was added as an additional strict check. An error in the implementation of this check meant that the result of a previous check to confirm that certificates in the chain are valid CA certificates was overwritten. This effectively bypasses the check that non-CA certificates must not be able to issue other certificates. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/27/1 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/27/2 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/28/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/28/4 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=2a40b7bc7b94dd7de897a74571e7024f0cf0d63b https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44845 https://kc.mc • CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation •