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: 7.5EPSS: 27%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 •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 4%CPEs: 22EXPL: 0CVE-2017-3731 – Truncated packet could crash via OOB read
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-3731
If an SSL/TLS server or client is running on a 32-bit host, and a specific cipher is being used, then a truncated packet can cause that server or client to perform an out-of-bounds read, usually resulting in a crash. For OpenSSL 1.1.0, the crash can be triggered when using CHACHA20/POLY1305; users should upgrade to 1.1.0d. For Openssl 1.0.2, the crash can be triggered when using RC4-MD5; users who have not disabled that algorithm should update to 1.0.2k. Si un servidor o cliente SSL/TLS se ejecuta en un host de 32 bits y se utiliza un cifrador específico, un paquete truncado puede dar lugar a que el servidor o el cliente realicen una lectura fuera de límites que, normalmente, provoca un cierre inesperado En OpenSSL 1.1.0, el cierre inesperado se puede desencadenar cuando se usa CHACHA20/POLY1305 An integer underflow leading to an out of bounds read flaw was found in OpenSSL. A remote attacker could possibly use this flaw to crash a 32-bit TLS/SSL server or client using OpenSSL if it used the RC4-MD5 cipher suite. • http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0286.html http://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3773 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2017-3236622.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95813 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037717 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2185 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018 • CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 21EXPL: 0CVE-2017-3732 – BN_mod_exp may produce incorrect results on x86_64
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-3732
There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 before 1.0.2k and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d. No EC algorithms are affected. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack would be very significant and likely only accessible to a limited number of attackers. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2017-3236622.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/95814 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037717 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2185 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2186 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2187 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2 • CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 7EXPL: 0CVE-2016-7055 – openssl: Carry propagating bug in Montgomery multiplication
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2016-7055
There is a carry propagating bug in the Broadwell-specific Montgomery multiplication procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0c that handles input lengths divisible by, but longer than 256 bits. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA, DSA and DH private keys are impossible. This is because the subroutine in question is not used in operations with the private key itself and an input of the attacker's direct choice. Otherwise the bug can manifest itself as transient authentication and key negotiation failures or reproducible erroneous outcome of public-key operations with specially crafted input. Among EC algorithms only Brainpool P-512 curves are affected and one presumably can attack ECDH key negotiation. • http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2017-3236622.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2017-3236626.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/94242 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037261 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2185 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2186 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2187 https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public • CWE-682: Incorrect Calculation •