CVSS: 5.3EPSS: 0%CPEs: 18EXPL: 0CVE-2019-1551 – rsaz_512_sqr overflow bug on x86_64
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-1551
There is an overflow bug in the x64_64 Montgomery squaring procedure used in exponentiation with 512-bit moduli. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against 2-prime RSA1024, 3-prime RSA1536, and DSA1024 as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH512 are considered just feasible. However, for an attack the target would have to re-use the DH512 private key, which is not recommended anyway. • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-01/msg00030.html http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/155754/Slackware-Security-Advisory-openssl-Updates.html https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=419102400a2811582a7a3d4a4e317d72e5ce0a8f https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=f1c5eea8a817075d31e43f5876993c6710238c98 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/03/msg00023.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/messag • CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound •
CVSS: 5.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 3EXPL: 0CVE-2019-1547 – ECDSA remote timing attack
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-1547
Normally in OpenSSL EC groups always have a co-factor present and this is used in side channel resistant code paths. However, in some cases, it is possible to construct a group using explicit parameters (instead of using a named curve). In those cases it is possible that such a group does not have the cofactor present. This can occur even where all the parameters match a known named curve. If such a curve is used then OpenSSL falls back to non-side channel resistant code paths which may result in full key recovery during an ECDSA signature operation. • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00054.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00072.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-10/msg00012.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-10/msg00016.html http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/154467/Slackware-Security-Advisory-openssl-Updates.html https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01785 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=21c856b75d81eff61aa63b4f036b • CWE-602: Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security •
CVSS: 4.3EPSS: 3%CPEs: 3EXPL: 0CVE-2019-1563 – Padding Oracle in PKCS7_dataDecode and CMS_decrypt_set1_pkey
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-1563
In situations where an attacker receives automated notification of the success or failure of a decryption attempt an attacker, after sending a very large number of messages to be decrypted, can recover a CMS/PKCS7 transported encryption key or decrypt any RSA encrypted message that was encrypted with the public RSA key, using a Bleichenbacher padding oracle attack. Applications are not affected if they use a certificate together with the private RSA key to the CMS_decrypt or PKCS7_decrypt functions to select the correct recipient info to decrypt. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1d (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1c). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0l (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0k). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2t (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2s). • http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00054.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-09/msg00072.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-10/msg00012.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-10/msg00016.html http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/154467/Slackware-Security-Advisory-openssl-Updates.html https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=08229ad838c50f644d7e928e2eef147b4308ad64 https://git.openssl.org/g • CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor CWE-203: Observable Discrepancy CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm •
CVSS: 3.3EPSS: 0%CPEs: 3EXPL: 0CVE-2019-1552 – Windows builds with insecure path defaults
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-1552
OpenSSL has internal defaults for a directory tree where it can find a configuration file as well as certificates used for verification in TLS. This directory is most commonly referred to as OPENSSLDIR, and is configurable with the --prefix / --openssldir configuration options. For OpenSSL versions 1.1.0 and 1.1.1, the mingw configuration targets assume that resulting programs and libraries are installed in a Unix-like environment and the default prefix for program installation as well as for OPENSSLDIR should be '/usr/local'. However, mingw programs are Windows programs, and as such, find themselves looking at sub-directories of 'C:/usr/local', which may be world writable, which enables untrusted users to modify OpenSSL's default configuration, insert CA certificates, modify (or even replace) existing engine modules, etc. For OpenSSL 1.0.2, '/usr/local/ssl' is used as default for OPENSSLDIR on all Unix and Windows targets, including Visual C builds. • https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-412672.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=54aa9d51b09d67e90db443f682cface795f5af9e https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=b15a19c148384e73338aa7c5b12652138e35ed28 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=d333ebaf9c77332754a9d5e111e2f53e1de54fdd https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=e32bc855a81a2d48d215c506bdeb4f598045f7e9 https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index? • CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation •
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 •