Show filters
22 Total Results
Displaying 1-10 of 22
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-2068

Disclosure Date: June 21, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
In addition to the c_rehash shell command injection identified in CVE-2022-1292, further circumstances where the c_rehash script does not properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection were found by code review. When the CVE-2022-1292 was fixed it was not discovered that there are other places in the script where the file names of certificates being hashed were possibly passed to a command executed through the shell. This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script. Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.4 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2,3.0.3). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1p (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1o). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2zf (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2ze).
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-36879

Disclosure Date: July 27, 2022 (last updated November 29, 2024)
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.18.14. xfrm_expand_policies in net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c can cause a refcount to be dropped twice.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-1292

Disclosure Date: May 03, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
The c_rehash script does not properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection. This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script. Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1o (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1n). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2ze (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2zd).
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-1434

Disclosure Date: May 03, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
The OpenSSL 3.0 implementation of the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite incorrectly uses the AAD data as the MAC key. This makes the MAC key trivially predictable. An attacker could exploit this issue by performing a man-in-the-middle attack to modify data being sent from one endpoint to an OpenSSL 3.0 recipient such that the modified data would still pass the MAC integrity check. Note that data sent from an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint will always be rejected by the recipient and the connection will fail at that point. Many application protocols require data to be sent from the client to the server first. Therefore, in such a case, only an OpenSSL 3.0 server would be impacted when talking to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 client. If both endpoints are OpenSSL 3.0 then the attacker could modify data being sent in both directions. In this case both clients and servers could be affected, regardless of the application protocol. Note that in the absence of an attacker this bug means that an Op…
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-1343

Disclosure Date: May 03, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
The function `OCSP_basic_verify` verifies the signer certificate on an OCSP response. In the case where the (non-default) flag OCSP_NOCHECKS is used then the response will be positive (meaning a successful verification) even in the case where the response signing certificate fails to verify. It is anticipated that most users of `OCSP_basic_verify` will not use the OCSP_NOCHECKS flag. In this case the `OCSP_basic_verify` function will return a negative value (indicating a fatal error) in the case of a certificate verification failure. The normal expected return value in this case would be 0. This issue also impacts the command line OpenSSL "ocsp" application. When verifying an ocsp response with the "-no_cert_checks" option the command line application will report that the verification is successful even though it has in fact failed. In this case the incorrect successful response will also be accompanied by error messages showing the failure and contradicting the apparently successful …
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-1473

Disclosure Date: May 03, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
The OPENSSL_LH_flush() function, which empties a hash table, contains a bug that breaks reuse of the memory occuppied by the removed hash table entries. This function is used when decoding certificates or keys. If a long lived process periodically decodes certificates or keys its memory usage will expand without bounds and the process might be terminated by the operating system causing a denial of service. Also traversing the empty hash table entries will take increasingly more time. Typically such long lived processes might be TLS clients or TLS servers configured to accept client certificate authentication. The function was added in the OpenSSL 3.0 version thus older releases are not affected by the issue. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2).
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0742

Disclosure Date: March 18, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
Memory leak in icmp6 implementation in Linux Kernel 5.13+ allows a remote attacker to DoS a host by making it go out-of-memory via icmp6 packets of type 130 or 131. We recommend upgrading past commit 2d3916f3189172d5c69d33065c3c21119fe539fc.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-0156

Disclosure Date: February 09, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
Improper input validation in the firmware for some Intel(R) Processors may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable an escalation of privilege via local access.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-0125

Disclosure Date: February 09, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
Improper initialization in the firmware for some Intel(R) Processors may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via physical access.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-0124

Disclosure Date: February 09, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
Improper access control in the firmware for some Intel(R) Processors may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via physical access.