| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The server supports at least one cipher suite which is on the NCSC-NL list of cipher suites to be phased out, increasing the risk of cryptographic weaknesses. |
| The Fedora Secure Boot CA certificate shipped with shim in Fedora was expired which could lead to old or invalid signed boot components being loaded. |
| In illumos illumos-gate 2024-02-15, an error occurs in the elliptic curve point addition algorithm that uses mixed Jacobian-affine coordinates, causing the algorithm to yield a result of POINT_AT_INFINITY when it should not. A man-in-the-middle attacker could use this to interfere with a connection, resulting in an attacked party computing an incorrect shared secret. |
| HCL DRYiCE Optibot Reset Station is impacted by a missing Strict Transport Security Header. This could allow an attacker to intercept or manipulate data during redirection. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA00) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA10) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA20) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA30) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-1EA10) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-1EA20) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-1EA30) (All versions < V3.0.1.1). The affected systems use symmetric cryptography with a hard-coded key to protect the communication between client and server. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to compromise confidentiality and integrity of the communication and, subsequently, availability of the system.
A successful exploit requires the attacker to gain knowledge of the hard-coded key and to be able to intercept the communication between client and server on the network. |
| The NXP Data Co-Processor (DCP) is a built-in hardware module for specific NXP SoCs¹ that implements a dedicated AES cryptographic engine for encryption/decryption operations. The dcp_tool reference implementation included in the repository selected the test key, regardless of its `-t` argument. This issue has been patched in commit 26a7. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIPROTEC 5 6MD84 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD89 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SX82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SX85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UM85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BD-2FO (All versions < V9.62), SIPROTEC 5 Compact 7SX800 (CP050) (All versions < V9.64). The affected devices are supporting weak ciphers on several ports (443/tcp for web, 4443/tcp for DIGSI 5 and configurable port for syslog over TLS).
This could allow an unauthorized attacker in a man-in-the-middle position to decrypt any data passed over to and from those ports. |
| ### Impact
When this library is used to deserialize messagepack data from an untrusted source, there is a risk of a denial of service attack by an attacker that sends data contrived to produce hash collisions, leading to large CPU consumption disproportionate to the size of the data being deserialized.
This is similar to [a prior advisory](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-7q36-4xx7-xcxf), which provided an inadequate fix for the hash collision part of the vulnerability.
### Patches
The following steps are required to mitigate this risk.
1. Upgrade to a version of the library where a fix is available.
1. Review the steps in [this previous advisory](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-7q36-4xx7-xcxf) to ensure you have your application configured for untrusted data.
### Workarounds
If upgrading MessagePack to a patched version is not an option for you, you may apply a manual workaround as follows:
1. Declare a class that derives from `MessagePackSecurity`.
2. Override the `GetHashCollisionResistantEqualityComparer<T>` method to provide a collision-resistant hash function of your own and avoid calling `base.GetHashCollisionResistantEqualityComparer<T>()`.
3. Configure a `MessagePackSerializerOptions` with an instance of your derived type by calling `WithSecurity` on an existing options object.
4. Use your custom options object for all deserialization operations. This may be by setting the `MessagePackSerializer.DefaultOptions` static property, if you call methods that rely on this default property, and/or by passing in the options object explicitly to any `Deserialize` method.
### References
- Learn more about best security practices when reading untrusted data with [MessagePack 1.x](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/tree/v1.x#security) or [MessagePack 2.x](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp#security).
- The .NET team's [discussion on hash collision vulnerabilities of their `HashCode` struct](https://github.com/GrabYourPitchforks/runtime/blob/threat_models/docs/design/security/System.HashCode.md).
### For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
* [Start a public discussion](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/discussions)
* [Email us privately](mailto:andrewarnott@live.com) |
| Smadar SPS – CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm |
| A vulnerability was found in Satellite. When running a remote execution job on a host, the host's SSH key is not being checked. When the key changes, the Satellite still connects it because it uses "-o StrictHostKeyChecking=no". This flaw can lead to a man-in-the-middle attack (MITM), denial of service, leaking of secrets the remote execution job contains, or other issues that may arise from the attacker's ability to forge an SSH key. This issue does not directly allow unauthorized remote execution on the Satellite, although it can leak secrets that may lead to it. |
| Use of hard-coded cryptographic key issue exists in "Kura Sushi Official App Produced by EPARK" for Android versions prior to 3.8.5. If this vulnerability is exploited, a local attacker may obtain the login ID and password for the affected product. |
| Weak algorithm used to sign RPM package. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Agent (Linux) before build 39185, Acronis Cyber Protect 16 (Linux) before build 39938. |
| sigstore-python is a Python tool for generating and verifying Sigstore signatures. Versions of sigstore-python newer than 2.0.0 but prior to 3.6.0 perform insufficient validation of the "integration time" present in "v2" and "v3" bundles during the verification flow: the "integration time" is verified *if* a source of signed time (such as an inclusion promise) is present, but is otherwise trusted if no source of signed time is present. This does not affect "v1" bundles, as the "v1" bundle format always requires an inclusion promise.
Sigstore uses signed time to support verification of signatures made against short-lived signing keys. The impact and severity of this weakness is *low*, as Sigstore contains multiple other enforcing components that prevent an attacker who modifies the integration timestamp within a bundle from impersonating a valid signature. In particular, an attacker who modifies the integration timestamp can induce a Denial of Service, but in no different manner than already possible with bundle access (e.g. modifying the signature itself such that it fails to verify). Separately, an attacker could upload a *new* entry to the transparency service, and substitute their new entry's time. However, this would still be rejected at validation time, as the new entry's (valid) signed time would be outside the validity window of the original signing certificate and would nonetheless render the attacker auditable. |
| Web installer integrity check used weak hash algorithm. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 16 (Windows) before build 39169. |
| itech iLabClient 3.7.1 relies on the hard-coded YngAYdgAE/kKZYu2F2wm6w== key (found in iLabClient.jar) for local users to read or write to the database. |
| free-one-api allows users to access large language model reverse engineering libraries through the standard OpenAI API format. In versions up to and including 1.0.1, MD5 is used to hash passwords before sending them to the backend. MD5 is a cryptographically broken hashing algorithm and is no longer considered secure for password storage or transmission. It is vulnerable to collision attacks and can be easily cracked using modern hardware, exposing user credentials to potential compromise. As of time of publication, a replacement for MD5 has not been committed to the free-one-api GitHub repository. |
| A vulnerability has been found in running-elephant Datart up to 1.0.0-rc3. Affected by this issue is the function getTokensecret of the file datart/security/src/main/java/datart/security/util/AESUtil.java of the component API. The manipulation leads to use of hard-coded cryptographic key
. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| A weakness has been identified in DJI Mavic Spark, Mavic Air and Mavic Mini 01.00.0500. Affected is an unknown function of the component Telemetry Channel. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key
. The attacker needs to be present on the local network. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. |
| Agentflow developed by Flowring has an Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to exploit the fixed key to generate verification information, thereby logging into the system as any user. Attacker must first obtain an user ID in order to exploit this vulnerability. |
| nvOC through 3.2 ships with SSH host keys baked into the installation image, which allows man-in-the-middle attacks and makes identification of all public IPv4 nodes trivial with Shodan.io. NOTE: as of 2019-12-01, the vendor indicated plans to fix this in the next image build. |
