Show filters
34 Total Results
Displaying 21-30 of 34
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0396

Disclosure Date: March 16, 2022 (last updated November 10, 2023)
BIND 9.16.11 -> 9.16.26, 9.17.0 -> 9.18.0 and versions 9.16.11-S1 -> 9.16.26-S1 of the BIND Supported Preview Edition. Specifically crafted TCP streams can cause connections to BIND to remain in CLOSE_WAIT status for an indefinite period of time, even after the client has terminated the connection.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-25220

Disclosure Date: March 16, 2022 (last updated November 29, 2024)
BIND 9.11.0 -> 9.11.36 9.12.0 -> 9.16.26 9.17.0 -> 9.18.0 BIND Supported Preview Editions: 9.11.4-S1 -> 9.11.36-S1 9.16.8-S1 -> 9.16.26-S1 Versions of BIND 9 earlier than those shown - back to 9.1.0, including Supported Preview Editions - are also believed to be affected but have not been tested as they are EOL. The cache could become poisoned with incorrect records leading to queries being made to the wrong servers, which might also result in false information being returned to clients.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-4160

Disclosure Date: January 28, 2022 (last updated November 08, 2023)
There is a carry propagation bug in the MIPS32 and MIPS64 squaring procedure. Many EC algorithms are affected, including some of the TLS 1.3 default curves. Impact was not analyzed in detail, because the pre-requisites for attack are considered unlikely and include reusing private keys. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to perform and are not believed likely. Attacks against DH are considered just feasible (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary to deduce information about a private key may be performed offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack would be significant. However, for an attack on TLS to be meaningful, the server would have to share the DH private key among multiple clients, which is no longer an option since CVE-2016-0701. This issue affects OpenSSL versions 1.0.2, 1.1.1 and 3.0.0. It was addressed in the releases of 1.1.1m and 3.0.1 on the 15th of December 2021. For…
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0235

Disclosure Date: January 16, 2022 (last updated November 28, 2024)
node-fetch is vulnerable to Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0155

Disclosure Date: January 10, 2022 (last updated November 28, 2024)
follow-redirects is vulnerable to Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-3749

Disclosure Date: August 31, 2021 (last updated November 08, 2023)
axios is vulnerable to Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-25217

Disclosure Date: May 26, 2021 (last updated November 28, 2024)
In ISC DHCP 4.1-ESV-R1 -> 4.1-ESV-R16, ISC DHCP 4.4.0 -> 4.4.2 (Other branches of ISC DHCP (i.e., releases in the 4.0.x series or lower and releases in the 4.3.x series) are beyond their End-of-Life (EOL) and no longer supported by ISC. From inspection it is clear that the defect is also present in releases from those series, but they have not been officially tested for the vulnerability), The outcome of encountering the defect while reading a lease that will trigger it varies, according to: the component being affected (i.e., dhclient or dhcpd) whether the package was built as a 32-bit or 64-bit binary whether the compiler flag -fstack-protection-strong was used when compiling In dhclient, ISC has not successfully reproduced the error on a 64-bit system. However, on a 32-bit system it is possible to cause dhclient to crash when reading an improper lease, which could cause network connectivity problems for an affected system due to the absence of a running DHCP client process. In dhcp…
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-23841

Disclosure Date: February 16, 2021 (last updated November 08, 2023)
The OpenSSL public API function X509_issuer_and_serial_hash() attempts to create a unique hash value based on the issuer and serial number data contained within an X509 certificate. However it fails to correctly handle any errors that may occur while parsing the issuer field (which might occur if the issuer field is maliciously constructed). This may subsequently result in a NULL pointer deref and a crash leading to a potential denial of service attack. The function X509_issuer_and_serial_hash() is never directly called by OpenSSL itself so applications are only vulnerable if they use this function directly and they use it on certificates that may have been obtained from untrusted sources. OpenSSL versions 1.1.1i and below are affected by this issue. Users of these versions should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.1.1j. OpenSSL versions 1.0.2x and below are affected by this issue. However OpenSSL 1.0.2 is out of support and no longer receiving public updates. Premium support customers of OpenSSL 1…
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-23839

Disclosure Date: February 16, 2021 (last updated November 08, 2023)
OpenSSL 1.0.2 supports SSLv2. If a client attempts to negotiate SSLv2 with a server that is configured to support both SSLv2 and more recent SSL and TLS versions then a check is made for a version rollback attack when unpadding an RSA signature. Clients that support SSL or TLS versions greater than SSLv2 are supposed to use a special form of padding. A server that supports greater than SSLv2 is supposed to reject connection attempts from a client where this special form of padding is present, because this indicates that a version rollback has occurred (i.e. both client and server support greater than SSLv2, and yet this is the version that is being requested). The implementation of this padding check inverted the logic so that the connection attempt is accepted if the padding is present, and rejected if it is absent. This means that such as server will accept a connection if a version rollback attack has occurred. Further the server will erroneously reject a connection if a normal SSL…
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-23337

Disclosure Date: February 15, 2021 (last updated November 28, 2024)
Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function.