Show filters
25 Total Results
Displaying 1-10 of 25
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-3566
Disclosure Date: October 15, 2014 (last updated November 25, 2024)
The SSL protocol 3.0, as used in OpenSSL through 1.0.1i and other products, uses nondeterministic CBC padding, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, aka the "POODLE" issue.
1
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2017-3735
Disclosure Date: August 28, 2017 (last updated November 26, 2024)
While parsing an IPAddressFamily extension in an X.509 certificate, it is possible to do a one-byte overread. This would result in an incorrect text display of the certificate. This bug has been present since 2006 and is present in all versions of OpenSSL before 1.0.2m and 1.1.0g.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-3507
Disclosure Date: August 13, 2014 (last updated October 05, 2023)
Memory leak in d1_both.c in the DTLS implementation in OpenSSL 0.9.8 before 0.9.8zb, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0n, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1i allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via zero-length DTLS fragments that trigger improper handling of the return value of a certain insert function.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-3510
Disclosure Date: August 13, 2014 (last updated October 05, 2023)
The ssl3_send_client_key_exchange function in s3_clnt.c in OpenSSL 0.9.8 before 0.9.8zb, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0n, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1i allows remote DTLS servers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and client application crash) via a crafted handshake message in conjunction with a (1) anonymous DH or (2) anonymous ECDH ciphersuite.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-3505
Disclosure Date: August 13, 2014 (last updated October 05, 2023)
Double free vulnerability in d1_both.c in the DTLS implementation in OpenSSL 0.9.8 before 0.9.8zb, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0n, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1i allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via crafted DTLS packets that trigger an error condition.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-3506
Disclosure Date: August 13, 2014 (last updated October 05, 2023)
d1_both.c in the DTLS implementation in OpenSSL 0.9.8 before 0.9.8zb, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0n, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1i allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via crafted DTLS handshake messages that trigger memory allocations corresponding to large length values.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-3508
Disclosure Date: August 13, 2014 (last updated October 05, 2023)
The OBJ_obj2txt function in crypto/objects/obj_dat.c in OpenSSL 0.9.8 before 0.9.8zb, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0n, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1i, when pretty printing is used, does not ensure the presence of '\0' characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to obtain sensitive information from process stack memory by reading output from X509_name_oneline, X509_name_print_ex, and unspecified other functions.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2014-0076
Disclosure Date: March 25, 2014 (last updated October 05, 2023)
The Montgomery ladder implementation in OpenSSL through 1.0.0l does not ensure that certain swap operations have a constant-time behavior, which makes it easier for local users to obtain ECDSA nonces via a FLUSH+RELOAD cache side-channel attack.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2013-0166
Disclosure Date: February 08, 2013 (last updated October 05, 2023)
OpenSSL before 0.9.8y, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0k, and 1.0.1 before 1.0.1d does not properly perform signature verification for OCSP responses, which allows remote OCSP servers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and application crash) via an invalid key.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2011-1473
Disclosure Date: June 16, 2012 (last updated November 08, 2023)
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
0