| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. |
| The JWT secret key is embedded in the egOS WebGUI backend and is readable to the default user. An unauthenticated remote attacker can generate valid HS256 tokens and bypass authentication/authorization due to the use of hard-coded cryptographic key. |
| 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. |
| Inadequate encryption strength issue exists in SS1 Ver.16.0.0.10 and earlier (Media version:16.0.0a and earlier). If this vulnerability is exploited, a function that requires authentication may be accessed by a remote unauthenticated attacker. |
| 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. |
| CyberGhostVPNSetup.exe (Windows installer) is signed using the weak cryptographic hash algorithm SHA-1, which is vulnerable to collision attacks. This allows a malicious actor to craft a fake installer with a forged SHA-1 certificate that may still be accepted by Windows signature verification mechanisms, particularly on systems without strict SmartScreen or trust policy enforcement. Additionally, the installer lacks High Entropy Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), as confirmed by BinSkim (BA2015 rule) and repeated WinDbg analysis. The binary consistently loads into predictable memory ranges, increasing the success rate of memory corruption exploits. These two misconfigurations, when combined, significantly lower the bar for successful supply-chain style attacks or privilege escalation through fake installers. |
| Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability in ABB RMC-100, ABB RMC-100 LITE.
An attacker can gain access to salted information to decrypt MQTT information.
This issue affects RMC-100: from 2105457-043 through 2105457-045; RMC-100 LITE: from 2106229-015 through 2106229-016. |
| Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability in ABB RMC-100, ABB RMC-100 LITE.
When the REST interface is enabled by the user, and an attacker gains access to
source code and control network, the attacker can bypass the REST interface authentication and gain access to MQTT configuration data.
This issue affects RMC-100: from 2105457-043 through 2105457-045; RMC-100 LITE: from 2106229-015 through 2106229-016. |
| "FOD" App uses hard-coded cryptographic keys, which may allow a local unauthenticated attacker to retrieve the cryptographic keys. |
| During the initial setup of the device the user connects to an access
point broadcast by the Sight Bulb Pro. During the negotiation, AES
Encryption keys are passed in cleartext. If captured, an attacker may be
able to decrypt communications between the management app and the Sight
Bulb Pro which may include sensitive information such as network
credentials. |
| Cryptographic Flaw in PDFium in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed an attacker to read potentially sensitive information from encrypted PDFs via a brute-force attack. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Configured cipher preference order not preserved vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.
This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.16 through 11.0.18, from 10.1.51 through 10.1.52, from 9.0.114 through 9.0.115.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.20, 10.1.53 or 9.0.116, which fix the issue. |
| A Key Exchange without Entity Authentication vulnerability in the SSH implementation of Juniper Networks Apstra allows a unauthenticated, MITM
attacker to impersonate managed devices.
Due to insufficient SSH host key validation an attacker can perform a machine-in-the-middle attack on the SSH connections from Apstra to managed devices, enabling an attacker to impersonate a managed device and capture user credentials.
This issue affects all versions of Apstra before 6.1.1. |
| An issue was discovered in the ALFA Windows 10 driver 6.1316.1209 for AWUS036H. The WEP, WPA, WPA2, and WPA3 implementations accept plaintext frames in a protected Wi-Fi network. An adversary can abuse this to inject arbitrary data frames independent of the network configuration. |
| The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that the A-MSDU flag in the plaintext QoS header field is authenticated. Against devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames (which is mandatory as part of 802.11n), an adversary can abuse this to inject arbitrary network packets. |
| Cocos AI is a confidential computing system for AI. The current implementation of attested TLS (aTLS) in CoCoS is vulnerable to a relay attack affecting all versions from v0.4.0 through v0.8.2. This vulnerability is present in both the AMD SEV-SNP and Intel TDX deployment targets supported by CoCoS. In the affected design, an attacker may be able to extract the ephemeral TLS private key used during the intra-handshake attestation. Because the attestation evidence is bound to the ephemeral key but not to the TLS channel, possession of that key is sufficient to relay or divert the attested TLS session. A client will accept the connection under false assumptions about the endpoint it is communicating with — the attestation report cannot distinguish the genuine attested service from the attacker's relay. This undermines the intended authentication guarantees of attested TLS. A successful attack may allow an attacker to impersonate an attested CoCoS service and access data or operations that the client intended to send only to the genuine attested endpoint. Exploitation requires the attacker to first extract the ephemeral TLS private key, which is possible through physical access to the server hardware, transient execution attacks, or side-channel attacks. Note that the aTLS implementation was fully redesigned in v0.7.0, but the redesign does not address this vulnerability. The relay attack weakness is architectural and affects all releases in the v0.4.0–v0.8.2 range. This vulnerability class was formally analyzed and demonstrated across multiple attested TLS implementations, including CoCoS, by researchers whose findings were disclosed to the IETF TLS Working Group. Formal verification was conducted using ProVerif. As of time of publication, there is no patch available. No complete workaround is available. The following hardening measures reduce but do not eliminate the risk: Keep TEE firmware and microcode up to date to reduce the key-extraction surface; define strict attestation policies that validate all available report fields, including firmware versions, TCB levels, and platform configuration registers; and/or enable mutual aTLS with CA-signed certificates where deployment architecture permits. |
| OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From 5.0 to 5.8, OrangeHRM Open Source encrypts certain sensitive fields with AES in ECB mode, which preserves block-aligned plaintext patterns in ciphertext and enables pattern disclosure against stored data. This vulnerability is fixed in 5.8.1. |
| SimpleJWT is a simple JSON web token library written in PHP. Prior to version 1.1.1, an unauthenticated attacker can perform a Denial of Service via JWE header tampering when PBES2 algorithms are used. Applications that call JWE::decrypt() on attacker-controlled JWEs using PBES2 algorithms are affected. This issue has been patched in version 1.1.1. |
| The Semtech LR11xx LoRa transceivers implement secure boot functionality using digital signatures to authenticate firmware. However, the implementation uses a non-standard cryptographic hashing algorithm that is vulnerable to second preimage attacks. An attacker with physical access to the device can exploit this weakness to generate a malicious firmware image with a hash collision, bypassing the secure boot verification mechanism and installing arbitrary unauthorized firmware on the device. |
| The Video Conferencing with Zoom plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure due to hardcoded encryption key on the 'vczapi_encrypt_decrypt' function in versions up to, and including, 4.2.1. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to decrypt and view the meeting id and password. |
