CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 12EXPL: 0CVE-2021-29723
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-29723
IBM Sterling Secure Proxy 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 2.4.3.2, and 3.4.3.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-ForceID: 201100. IBM Sterling Secure Proxy versiones 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 2.4.3.2 y 3.4.3.2, usa algoritmos criptográficos más débiles de lo esperado que podrían permitir a un atacante descifrar información altamente confidencial. IBM X-ForceID: 201100. • https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/201100 https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6484681 https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6484685 • CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 12EXPL: 0CVE-2021-29722
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-29722
IBM Sterling Secure Proxy 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 2.4.3.2, and 3.4.3.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 201095. IBM Sterling Secure Proxy versiones 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 2.4.3.2 y 3.4.3.2, usa algoritmos criptográficos más débiles de lo esperado que podrían permitir a un atacante descifrar información altamente confidencial. IBM X-Force ID: 201095. • https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/201095 https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6484681 https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6484685 • CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm •
CVSS: 6.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 10EXPL: 0CVE-2021-3634 – libssh: possible heap-based buffer overflow when rekeying
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2021-3634
A flaw has been found in libssh in versions prior to 0.9.6. The SSH protocol keeps track of two shared secrets during the lifetime of the session. One of them is called secret_hash and the other session_id. Initially, both of them are the same, but after key re-exchange, previous session_id is kept and used as an input to new secret_hash. Historically, both of these buffers had shared length variable, which worked as long as these buffers were same. • https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978810 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DRK67AJCWYYVAGF5SGAHNZXCX3PN3ZFP https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JKYD3ZRAMDAQX3ZW6THHUF3GXN7FF6B4 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SVWAAB2XMKEUMPMDALINKAA4U2QM4LNG https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202312-05 https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20211004-0003 https://www&# • CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write •
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: 5%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 •