| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Unitree Go2, G1, H1, and B2 devices through 2025-09-20 decrypt BLE packet data by using the df98b715d5c6ed2b25817b6f2554124a key and the 2841ae97419c2973296a0d4bdfe19a4f IV. |
| The use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm was discovered in firmware version 3.60 of the Click Plus PLC. The vulnerability relies on the fact that the software uses an insecure implementation of the RSA encryption algorithm. |
| desknet's NEO V4.0R1.0 to V9.0R2.0 contains a hard-coded cryptographic key, which allows an attacker to create malicious AppSuite applications. |
| ZF FROST is a Rust implementation of FROST (Flexible Round-Optimised Schnorr Threshold signatures). In versions 2.0.0 through 2.1.0, refresh shares with smaller min_signers will reduce security of group. The inability to change min_signers (i.e. the threshold) with the refresh share functionality (frost_core::keys::refresh module) was not made clear to users. Using a smaller value would not decrease the threshold, and attempts to sign using a smaller threshold would fail. Additionally, after refreshing the shares with a smaller threshold, it would still be possible to sign with the original threshold, potentially causing a security loss to the participant's shares. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.0. |
| The use of a hard-coded cryptographic key was discovered in firmware version 3.60 of the Click Plus PLC. The vulnerability relies on the fact that the software contains a hard-coded AES key used to protect the initial messages of a new KOPS session. |
| An issue was discovered in Siklu Communications Etherhaul 8010TX and 1200FX devices, Firmware 7.4.0 through 10.7.3 and possibly other previous versions. The rfpiped service listening on TCP port 555 which uses static AES encryption keys hardcoded in the binary. These keys are identical across all devices, allowing attackers to craft encrypted packets that execute arbitrary commands without authentication. This is a failed patch for CVE-2017-7318. This issue may affect other Etherhaul series devices with shared firmware. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM i801 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM i802 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM i803 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM M2100 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM M2200 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM M969 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RMC30 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RP110 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS1600 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS1600F (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS1600T (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS400 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS401 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS416 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS416P (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RS8000 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS8000A (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS8000H (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS8000T (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RS900G (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RS900GP (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS900W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS910 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS910L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS910W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS920L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS920W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS930L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS930W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS940G (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RS969 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG2200 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG907R (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG908C (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG909R (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG910C (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X (All versions), RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RSL910 (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RST2228 (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RST2228P (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RST916C (All versions < V5.10.0), RUGGEDCOM RST916P (All versions < V5.10.0). The affected devices support the TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 cipher suite, which uses CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) mode that is known to be vulnerable to timing attacks. This could allow an attacker to compromise the integrity and confidentiality of encrypted communications. |
| The devices are vulnerable to an authentication bypass due to flaws in the authorization mechanism. An unauthenticated remote attacker could exploit this weakness by performing brute-force attacks to guess valid credentials or by using MD5 collision techniques to forge authentication hashes, potentially compromising the device. |
| CWE-328: Use of Weak Hash |
| Programs/P73_SimplePythonEncryption.py illustrates a simple Python encryption example using the RSA Algorithm. In versions prior to commit 6ce60b1, an attacker may be able to decrypt the data using brute force attacks and because of this the whole application can be impacted. This issue has been patched in commit 6ce60b1. A workaround involves increasing the key size, for RSA or DSA this is at least 2048 bits, for ECC this is at least 256 bits. |
| NeuVector used a hard-coded cryptographic key embedded in the source
code. At compilation time, the key value was replaced with the secret
key value and used to encrypt sensitive configurations when NeuVector
stores the data. |
| Use of hard-coded cryptographic key issue exists in BizRobo! all versions. Credentials inside robot files may be obtained if the encryption key is available.
The vendor provides the workaround information and recommends to apply it to the deployment environment. |
| gitoxide is an implementation of git written in Rust. Before 0.42.0, gitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. gitoxide uses the sha1_smol or sha1 crate, both of which implement standard SHA-1 without any mitigations for collision attacks. This means that two distinct Git objects with colliding SHA-1 hashes would break the Git object model and integrity checks when used with gitoxide. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.42.0. |
| SmartOS, as used in Triton Data Center and other products, has static host SSH keys in the 60f76fd2-143f-4f57-819b-1ae32684e81b image (a Debian 12 LX zone image from 2024-07-26). |
| Dpanel is a Docker visualization panel system which provides complete Docker management functions. The Dpanel service contains a hardcoded JWT secret in its default configuration, allowing attackers to generate valid JWT tokens and compromise the host machine. This security flaw allows attackers to analyze the source code, discover the embedded secret, and craft legitimate JWT tokens. By forging these tokens, an attacker can successfully bypass authentication mechanisms, impersonate privileged users, and gain unauthorized administrative access. Consequently, this enables full control over the host machine, potentially leading to severe consequences such as sensitive data exposure, unauthorized command execution, privilege escalation, or further lateral movement within the network environment. This issue is patched in version 1.6.1. A workaround for this vulnerability involves replacing the hardcoded secret with a securely generated value and load it from secure configuration storage. |
| Polkadot Frontier is an Ethereum and EVM compatibility layer for Polkadot and Substrate. In versions prior to commit 36f70d1, the Curve25519Add and Curve25519ScalarMul precompiles incorrectly handle invalid Ristretto point representations. Instead of returning an error, they silently treat invalid input bytes as the Ristretto identity element, leading to potentially incorrect cryptographic results. This is fixed in commit 36f70d1. |
| Besu Native contains scripts and tooling that is used to build and package the native libraries used by the Ethereum client Hyperledger Besu. Besu 24.7.1 through 25.2.2, corresponding to besu-native versions 0.9.0 through 1.2.1, have a potential consensus bug for the precompiles ALTBN128_ADD (0x06), ALTBN128_MUL (0x07), and ALTBN128_PAIRING (0x08). These precompiles were reimplemented in besu-native using gnark-crypto's bn254 implementation, as the former implementation used a library which was no longer maintained and not sufficiently performant. The new gnark implementation was initially added in version 0.9.0 of besu-native but was not utilized by Besu until version 0.9.2 in Besu 24.7.1. The issue is that there are EC points which may be crafted which are in the correct subgroup but are not on the curve and the besu-native gnark implementation was relying on subgroup checks to perform point-on-curve checks as well. The version of gnark-crypto used at the time did not do this check when performing subgroup checks. The result is that it was possible for Besu to give an incorrect result and fall out of consensus when executing one of these precompiles against a specially crafted input point. Additionally, homogenous Besu-only networks can potentially enshrine invalid state which would be incorrect and difficult to process with patched versions of besu which handle these calls correctly. The underlying defect has been patched in besu-native release 1.3.0. The fixed version of Besu is version 25.3.0. As a workaround for versions of Besu with the problem, the native precompile for altbn128 may be disabled in favor of the pure-java implementation. The pure java implementation is significantly slower, but does not have this consensus issue. |
| VyOS 1.3 through 1.5 (fixed in 1.4.2) or any Debian-based system using dropbear in combination with live-build has the same Dropbear private host keys across different installations. Thus, an attacker can conduct active man-in-the-middle attacks against SSH connections if Dropbear is enabled as the SSH daemon. I n VyOS, this is not the default configuration for the system SSH daemon, but is for the console service. To mitigate this, one can run "rm -f /etc/dropbear/*key*" and/or "rm -f /etc/dropbear-initramfs/*key*" and then dropbearkey -t rsa -s 4096 -f /etc/dropbear_rsa_host_key and reload the service or reboot the system before using Dropbear as the SSH daemon (this clears out all keys mistakenly built into the release image) or update to the latest version of VyOS 1.4 or 1.5. Note that this vulnerability is not unique to VyOS and may appear in any Debian-based Linux distribution that uses Dropbear in combination with live-build, which has a safeguard against this behavior in OpenSSH but no equivalent one for Dropbear. |
| A vulnerability was found in Netis WF-2404 1.1.124EN. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /еtc/passwd. The manipulation leads to use of weak hash. It is possible to launch the attack on the physical device. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| A cryptanalytic break in Altcha Proof-of-Work obfuscation mode version 0.8.0 and later allows for remote visitors to recover the Proof-of-Work nonce in constant time via mathematical deduction. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because the product's objective is "to discourage automated scraping / bots, not guarantee resistance to determined attackers." The documentation states “the goal is not to provide a secure cryptographic algorithm but to use a proof-of-work mechanism that allows any capable device to decrypt the hidden data.” |
