| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Dell Secure Connect Gateway (SCG) Policy Manager, versions prior to 5.34.00.16, Versions prior to 5.36, contains an Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with adjacent network access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Information disclosure, Information tampering, and Protection mechanism bypass. |
| The session-persistence implementation in Apache Tomcat 6.x before 6.0.45, 7.x before 7.0.68, 8.x before 8.0.31, and 9.x before 9.0.0.M2 mishandles session attributes, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended SecurityManager restrictions and execute arbitrary code in a privileged context via a web application that places a crafted object in a session. |
| Improper certificate validation in the tunnel handshake in Cato Client allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to impersonate a Cato Point of Presence (PoP) server and intercept or modify tunnel traffic. |
| NetEase Cloud Music client for Windows (cloudmusic.exe) versions 3.1.38 and 3.1.39.205426 contains a TLS certificate validation vulnerability that allows a network-adjacent attacker to intercept and decrypt HTTPS traffic by failing to validate the server certificate chain, verify the hostname, or consult any Windows certificate trust store. Attackers can perform a man-in-the-middle attack using a rogue certificate authority to decrypt traffic, capture the MUSIC_U session credential sent in authenticated API requests, and modify server responses in transit, enabling account takeover and transport-layer response forgery. |
| Frappe framework before 13.32.0 uses weak authentication for print view access, because the print view key can be derived from data exposed by other whitelisted API endpoints. Attackers can generate a valid key to view documents through the print view without proper permissions. |
| A improper validation of certificate with host mismatch vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.1 through 7.6.6, FortiProxy 7.6.2 through 7.6.6 may allow attacker to information disclosure via <insert attack vector here> |
| When curl is told to use the Certificate Status Request TLS extension, often referred to as OCSP stapling, to verify that the server certificate is valid, it might fail to detect some OCSP problems and instead wrongly consider the response as fine. If the returned status reports another error than 'revoked' (like for example 'unauthorized') it is not treated as a bad certficate. |
| libcurl did not check the server certificate of TLS connections done to a host specified as an IP address, when built to use mbedTLS. libcurl would wrongly avoid using the set hostname function when the specified hostname was given as an IP address, therefore completely skipping the certificate check. This affects all uses of TLS protocols (HTTPS, FTPS, IMAPS, POPS3, SMTPS, etc). |
| libcurl skips the certificate verification for a QUIC connection under certain conditions, when built to use wolfSSL. If told to use an unknown/bad cipher or curve, the error path accidentally skips the verification and returns OK, thus ignoring any certificate problems. |
| Payload is a free and open source headless content management system. In versions after 3.0.0 and before 3.90.0, a custom field option that maps a field to a reserved authentication claim name can place unintended values in the authentication token issued at login. This issue is fixed in version 3.90.0. |
| IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 can allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to present a forged TLS certificate, intercept the connection, and capture the IAM bearer Authorization header automatically attached by the session adapter. The captured token grants full platform-scope tenant API access, enabling the attacker to read and manipulate the victim's DataStage projects, flows, assets, and pipeline definitions. This is client-side SDK code running on the user's own machine, so exploitation requires an external network interceptor rather than a co-tenant in the shared cluster. |
| Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 6u95, 7u80, and 8u45; JRockit R28.3.6; and Java SE Embedded 7u75 and Embedded 8u33 allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to Security. |
| Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE 6u95, 7u80, and 8u45; JRockit R28.3.6; and Java SE Embedded 7u75 and 8u33 allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality via vectors related to JSSE. |
| The function X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() is documented to
implicitly enable the certificate policy check when doing certificate
verification. However the implementation of the function does not
enable the check which allows certificates with invalid or incorrect
policies to pass the certificate verification.
As suddenly enabling the policy check could break existing deployments it was
decided to keep the existing behavior of the X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy()
function.
Instead the applications that require OpenSSL to perform certificate
policy check need to use X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies() or explicitly
enable the policy check by calling X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags() with
the X509_V_FLAG_POLICY_CHECK flag argument.
Certificate policy checks are disabled by default in OpenSSL and are not
commonly used by applications. |
| Applications that use a non-default option when verifying certificates may be
vulnerable to an attack from a malicious CA to circumvent certain checks.
Invalid certificate policies in leaf certificates are silently ignored by
OpenSSL and other certificate policy checks are skipped for that certificate.
A malicious CA could use this to deliberately assert invalid certificate policies
in order to circumvent policy checking on the certificate altogether.
Policy processing is disabled by default but can be enabled by passing
the `-policy' argument to the command line utilities or by calling the
`X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies()' function. |
| A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions
of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains
that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this
vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers
exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service
(DoS) attack on affected systems.
Policy processing is disabled by default but can be enabled by passing
the `-policy' argument to the command line utilities or by calling the
`X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies()' function. |
| An authentication bypass and command injection vulnerability exists in the inter-switch remote execution service of Brocade Fabric OS versions before 9.2.2d and 10.0.0 through 10.0.0a1. When processing remote command execution IPC frames across the fabric, the receiving switch processes these commands at an elevated processing level without proper verification of transmitted parameters. This allows an attacker on a single fabric-connected switch to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary root commands locally or across other managed fabric members where remote execution functionality is enabled. |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. When validating certificates, an oversized Subject Alternative Name (SAN) could cause the validation process to incorrectly fall back to checking the Common Name (CN) field. This could allow a remote attacker to bypass proper certificate validation, potentially leading to spoofing or man-in-the-middle attacks. |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by presenting a specially crafted certificate that contains Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or Service (SRV) Subject Alternative Names (SANs). This could cause the certificate validation process to incorrectly fall back to checking DNS hostnames against the Common Name (CN), potentially allowing the attacker to spoof legitimate services or intercept sensitive information. |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. This vulnerability occurs because permitted name constraints were incorrectly ignored when previous Certificate Authorities (CAs) only had excluded name constraints. A remote attacker could exploit this to bypass critical name constraint checks during certificate validation. This bypass could lead to the acceptance of invalid certificates, potentially enabling spoofing or man-in-the-middle attacks against affected systems. |
