A misconfiguration exists in the MQTTS functionality of Sealevel Systems, Inc. SeaConnect 370W v1.3.34. This misconfiguration significantly simplifies a man-in-the-middle attack, which directly leads to control of device functionality.

Multiple vulnerabilities in Cisco Small Business RV160, RV260, RV340, and RV345 Series Routers could allow an attacker to do any of the following: Execute arbitrary code Elevate privileges Execute arbitrary commands Bypass authentication and authorization protections Fetch and run unsigned software Cause denial of service (DoS) For more information about these vulnerabilities, see the Details section of this advisory.

Dell PowerScale OneFS, 8.2.x-9.3.x, contains a Improper Certificate Validation. A unauthenticated remote attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to a man-in-the-middle capture of administrative credentials.

The EU Technical Specifications for Digital COVID Certificates before 1.1 mishandle certificate governance. A non-production public key certificate could have been used in production.

An Improper Certificate Validation weakness in the Juniper Networks Junos OS allows an attacker to perform Person-in-the-Middle (PitM) attacks when a system script is fetched from a remote source at a specified HTTPS URL, which may compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the device. The following command can be executed by an administrator via the CLI to refresh a script from a remote location, which is affected from this vulnerability: >request system scripts refresh-from (commit | event | extension-service | op | snmp) file filename url <https-url> This issue affects: Juniper Networks Junos OS All versions prior to 18.4R2-S9, 18.4R3-S9; 19.1 versions prior to 19.1R2-S3, 19.1R3-S7; 19.2 versions prior to 19.2R1-S7, 19.2R3-S3; 19.3 versions prior to 19.3R3-S4; 19.4 versions prior to 19.4R3-S7; 20.1 versions prior to 20.1R2-S2, 20.1R3; 20.2 versions prior to 20.2R3; 20.3 versions prior to 20.3R2-S1, 20.3R3; 20.4 versions prior to 20.4R2; 21.1 versions prior to 21.1R1-S1, 21.1R2.

e2guardian v5.4.x <= v5.4.3r is affected by missing SSL certificate validation in the SSL MITM engine. In standalone mode (i.e., acting as a proxy or a transparent proxy), with SSL MITM enabled, e2guardian, if built with OpenSSL v1.1.x, did not validate hostnames in certificates of the web servers that it connected to, and thus was itself vulnerable to MITM attacks.

A combination of a use of hard-coded cryptographic key vulnerability [CWE-321] in FortiClientEMS 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below and an improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-297] in FortiClientWindows, FortiClientLinux and FortiClientMac 7.0.1 and below, 6.4.6 and below may allow an unauthenticated and network adjacent attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack between the EMS and the FCT via the telemetry protocol.

Microsoft Defender for IoT Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail provides a simple layer on top of JavaMail/Jakarta Mail for OSGi to send mails via SMTPS. To reduce the risk of "man in the middle" attacks additional server identity checks must be performed when accessing mail servers. For compatibility reasons these additional checks are disabled by default in JavaMail/Jakarta Mail. The SimpleMailService in Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail 1.0 lacks an option to enable these checks for the shared mail session. A user could enable these checks nevertheless by accessing the session via the message created by SimpleMessageBuilder and setting the property mail.smtps.ssl.checkserveridentity to true. Apache Sling Commons Messaging Mail 2.0 adds support for enabling server identity checks and these checks are enabled by default. - https://javaee.github.io/javamail/docs/SSLNOTES.txt - https://javaee.github.io/javamail/docs/api/com/sun/mail/smtp/package-summary.html - https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail/issues/429

A vulnerability has been identified in SINUMERIK Edge (All versions < V3.2). The affected software does not properly validate the server certificate when initiating a TLS connection. This could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by interfering in the communication path between the client and the intended server.