Filtered by vendor Openssl
Subscribe
Total
242 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-2274 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2022-07-15 | 10.0 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| The OpenSSL 3.0.4 release introduced a serious bug in the RSA implementation for X86_64 CPUs supporting the AVX512IFMA instructions. This issue makes the RSA implementation with 2048 bit private keys incorrect on such machines and memory corruption will happen during the computation. As a consequence of the memory corruption an attacker may be able to trigger a remote code execution on the machine performing the computation. SSL/TLS servers or other servers using 2048 bit RSA private keys running on machines supporting AVX512IFMA instructions of the X86_64 architecture are affected by this issue. | |||||
| CVE-2014-0195 | 4 Fedoraproject, Mariadb, Openssl and 1 more | 5 Fedora, Mariadb, Openssl and 2 more | 2022-06-30 | 6.8 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The dtls1_reassemble_fragment function in d1_both.c in OpenSSL before 0.9.8za, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0m, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1h does not properly validate fragment lengths in DTLS ClientHello messages, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and application crash) via a long non-initial fragment. | |||||
| CVE-2019-1551 | 7 Canonical, Debian, Fedoraproject and 4 more | 9 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Fedora and 6 more | 2022-04-19 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| 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. Also applications directly using the low level API BN_mod_exp may be affected if they use BN_FLG_CONSTTIME. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1e (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1d). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2u (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2t). | |||||
| CVE-2009-1387 | 3 Canonical, Openssl, Redhat | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Openssl, Openssl | 2022-02-02 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The dtls1_retrieve_buffered_fragment function in ssl/d1_both.c in OpenSSL before 1.0.0 Beta 2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and daemon crash) via an out-of-sequence DTLS handshake message, related to a "fragment bug." | |||||
| CVE-2009-1378 | 2 Canonical, Openssl | 2 Ubuntu Linux, Openssl | 2022-02-02 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Multiple memory leaks in the dtls1_process_out_of_seq_message function in ssl/d1_both.c in OpenSSL 0.9.8k and earlier 0.9.8 versions allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via DTLS records that (1) are duplicates or (2) have sequence numbers much greater than current sequence numbers, aka "DTLS fragment handling memory leak." | |||||
| CVE-2009-1377 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2022-02-02 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The dtls1_buffer_record function in ssl/d1_pkt.c in OpenSSL 0.9.8k and earlier 0.9.8 versions allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a large series of "future epoch" DTLS records that are buffered in a queue, aka "DTLS record buffer limitation bug." | |||||
| CVE-2008-1672 | 2 Canonical, Openssl | 2 Ubuntu Linux, Openssl | 2022-02-02 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| OpenSSL 0.9.8f and 0.9.8g allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a TLS handshake that omits the Server Key Exchange message and uses "particular cipher suites," which triggers a NULL pointer dereference. | |||||
| CVE-2008-0166 | 3 Canonical, Debian, Openssl | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Openssl | 2022-02-02 | 7.8 HIGH | N/A |
| OpenSSL 0.9.8c-1 up to versions before 0.9.8g-9 on Debian-based operating systems uses a random number generator that generates predictable numbers, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct brute force guessing attacks against cryptographic keys. | |||||
| CVE-2020-1967 | 10 Broadcom, Debian, Fedoraproject and 7 more | 26 Fabric Operating System, Debian Linux, Fedora and 23 more | 2021-12-10 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| Server or client applications that call the SSL_check_chain() function during or after a TLS 1.3 handshake may crash due to a NULL pointer dereference as a result of incorrect handling of the "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension. The crash occurs if an invalid or unrecognised signature algorithm is received from the peer. This could be exploited by a malicious peer in a Denial of Service attack. OpenSSL version 1.1.1d, 1.1.1e, and 1.1.1f are affected by this issue. This issue did not affect OpenSSL versions prior to 1.1.1d. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1g (Affected 1.1.1d-1.1.1f). | |||||
| CVE-2004-0112 | 23 4d, Apple, Avaya and 20 more | 65 Webstar, Mac Os X, Mac Os X Server and 62 more | 2021-11-08 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The SSL/TLS handshaking code in OpenSSL 0.9.7a, 0.9.7b, and 0.9.7c, when using Kerberos ciphersuites, does not properly check the length of Kerberos tickets during a handshake, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted SSL/TLS handshake that causes an out-of-bounds read. | |||||
| CVE-2004-0081 | 23 4d, Apple, Avaya and 20 more | 66 Webstar, Mac Os X, Mac Os X Server and 63 more | 2021-11-08 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| OpenSSL 0.9.6 before 0.9.6d does not properly handle unknown message types, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop), as demonstrated using the Codenomicon TLS Test Tool. | |||||
| CVE-2004-0079 | 23 4d, Apple, Avaya and 20 more | 66 Webstar, Mac Os X, Mac Os X Server and 63 more | 2021-11-08 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The do_change_cipher_spec function in OpenSSL 0.9.6c to 0.9.6k, and 0.9.7a to 0.9.7c, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted SSL/TLS handshake that triggers a null dereference. | |||||
| CVE-2019-1543 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2021-07-31 | 5.8 MEDIUM | 7.4 HIGH |
| ChaCha20-Poly1305 is an AEAD cipher, and requires a unique nonce input for every encryption operation. RFC 7539 specifies that the nonce value (IV) should be 96 bits (12 bytes). OpenSSL allows a variable nonce length and front pads the nonce with 0 bytes if it is less than 12 bytes. However it also incorrectly allows a nonce to be set of up to 16 bytes. In this case only the last 12 bytes are significant and any additional leading bytes are ignored. It is a requirement of using this cipher that nonce values are unique. Messages encrypted using a reused nonce value are susceptible to serious confidentiality and integrity attacks. If an application changes the default nonce length to be longer than 12 bytes and then makes a change to the leading bytes of the nonce expecting the new value to be a new unique nonce then such an application could inadvertently encrypt messages with a reused nonce. Additionally the ignored bytes in a long nonce are not covered by the integrity guarantee of this cipher. Any application that relies on the integrity of these ignored leading bytes of a long nonce may be further affected. Any OpenSSL internal use of this cipher, including in SSL/TLS, is safe because no such use sets such a long nonce value. However user applications that use this cipher directly and set a non-default nonce length to be longer than 12 bytes may be vulnerable. OpenSSL versions 1.1.1 and 1.1.0 are affected by this issue. Due to the limited scope of affected deployments this has been assessed as low severity and therefore we are not creating new releases at this time. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1c (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1b). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0k (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0j). | |||||
| CVE-2019-1547 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2021-07-31 | 1.9 LOW | 4.7 MEDIUM |
| 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. In order to be vulnerable an attacker would have to have the ability to time the creation of a large number of signatures where explicit parameters with no co-factor present are in use by an application using libcrypto. For the avoidance of doubt libssl is not vulnerable because explicit parameters are never used. 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). | |||||
| CVE-2019-1563 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2021-07-31 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 3.7 LOW |
| 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). | |||||
| CVE-2020-7042 | 4 Fedoraproject, Openfortivpn Project, Openssl and 1 more | 5 Fedora, Openfortivpn, Openssl and 2 more | 2021-07-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| An issue was discovered in openfortivpn 1.11.0 when used with OpenSSL 1.0.2 or later. tunnel.c mishandles certificate validation because the hostname check operates on uninitialized memory. The outcome is that a valid certificate is never accepted (only a malformed certificate may be accepted). | |||||
| CVE-2019-0190 | 3 Apache, Openssl, Oracle | 6 Http Server, Openssl, Enterprise Manager Ops Center and 3 more | 2021-07-20 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| A bug exists in the way mod_ssl handled client renegotiations. A remote attacker could send a carefully crafted request that would cause mod_ssl to enter a loop leading to a denial of service. This bug can be only triggered with Apache HTTP Server version 2.4.37 when using OpenSSL version 1.1.1 or later, due to an interaction in changes to handling of renegotiation attempts. | |||||
| CVE-2018-0737 | 2 Canonical, Openssl | 2 Ubuntu Linux, Openssl | 2021-07-20 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| The OpenSSL RSA Key generation algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a cache timing side channel attack. An attacker with sufficient access to mount cache timing attacks during the RSA key generation process could recover the private key. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0i-dev (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0h). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2p-dev (Affected 1.0.2b-1.0.2o). | |||||
| CVE-2018-0739 | 3 Canonical, Debian, Openssl | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Openssl | 2021-07-20 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| Constructed ASN.1 types with a recursive definition (such as can be found in PKCS7) could eventually exceed the stack given malicious input with excessive recursion. This could result in a Denial Of Service attack. There are no such structures used within SSL/TLS that come from untrusted sources so this is considered safe. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.0h (Affected 1.1.0-1.1.0g). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2o (Affected 1.0.2b-1.0.2n). | |||||
| CVE-2011-1473 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2021-04-20 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| ** DISPUTED ** OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, and 0.9.8m through 1.x, does not properly restrict client-initiated renegotiation within the SSL and TLS protocols, which might make it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by performing many renegotiations within a single connection, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-5094. NOTE: it can also be argued that it is the responsibility of server deployments, not a security library, to prevent or limit renegotiation when it is inappropriate within a specific environment. | |||||