| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Inadequate encryption strength for some Edge Orchestrator software for Intel(R) Tiber™ Edge Platform may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via adjacent access. |
| An entity in Network Configuration Manager product is misconfigured and exposing password field to Solarwinds Information Service (SWIS). Exposed credentials are encrypted and require authenticated access with an NCM role. |
| Insufficient encryption strength in Sprecher Automation SPRECON-E-C, SPRECON-E-P, and SPRECON-E-T3 allows a local unprivileged attacker to extract data from update images and thus obtain limited information about the architecture and internal processes. |
| Inadequate encryption strength in .NET, .NET Framework, Visual Studio allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network. |
| IBM Security QRadar EDR 3.12 through 3.12.23 IBM Security ReaQta uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. |
| php-jwt v6.11.0 was discovered to contain weak encryption. NOTE: this issue has been disputed on the basis that key lengths are expected to be set by an application, not by this library. This dispute is subject to review under CNA rules 4.1.4, 4.1.14, and other rules; the dispute tagging is not meant to recommend an outcome for this CVE Record. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: l2cap: Check encryption key size on incoming connection
This is required for passing GAP/SEC/SEM/BI-04-C PTS test case:
Security Mode 4 Level 4, Responder - Invalid Encryption Key Size
- 128 bit
This tests the security key with size from 1 to 15 bytes while the
Security Mode 4 Level 4 requests 16 bytes key size.
Currently PTS fails with the following logs:
- expected:Connection Response:
Code: [3 (0x03)] Code
Identifier: (lt)WildCard: Exists(gt)
Length: [8 (0x0008)]
Destination CID: (lt)WildCard: Exists(gt)
Source CID: [64 (0x0040)]
Result: [3 (0x0003)] Connection refused - Security block
Status: (lt)WildCard: Exists(gt),
but received:Connection Response:
Code: [3 (0x03)] Code
Identifier: [1 (0x01)]
Length: [8 (0x0008)]
Destination CID: [64 (0x0040)]
Source CID: [64 (0x0040)]
Result: [0 (0x0000)] Connection Successful
Status: [0 (0x0000)] No further information available
And HCI logs:
< HCI Command: Read Encrypti.. (0x05|0x0008) plen 2
Handle: 14 Address: 00:1B:DC:F2:24:10 (Vencer Co., Ltd.)
> HCI Event: Command Complete (0x0e) plen 7
Read Encryption Key Size (0x05|0x0008) ncmd 1
Status: Success (0x00)
Handle: 14 Address: 00:1B:DC:F2:24:10 (Vencer Co., Ltd.)
Key size: 7
> ACL Data RX: Handle 14 flags 0x02 dlen 12
L2CAP: Connection Request (0x02) ident 1 len 4
PSM: 4097 (0x1001)
Source CID: 64
< ACL Data TX: Handle 14 flags 0x00 dlen 16
L2CAP: Connection Response (0x03) ident 1 len 8
Destination CID: 64
Source CID: 64
Result: Connection successful (0x0000)
Status: No further information available (0x0000) |
| A compromised web child process could disable web security opening restrictions, leading to a new child process being spawned within the `file://` context. Given a reliable exploit primitive, this new process could be exploited again leading to arbitrary file read. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 109. |
| Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) before 3.15.4, as used in Mozilla Firefox before 27.0, Firefox ESR 24.x before 24.3, Thunderbird before 24.3, SeaMonkey before 2.24, and other products, does not properly restrict public values in Diffie-Hellman key exchanges, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass cryptographic protection mechanisms in ticket handling by leveraging use of a certain value. |
| Non-Compliant TLS Configuration.This issue affects BLU-IC2: through 1.19.5; BLU-IC4: through 1.19.5 . |
| Schneider Electric Wonderware Information Server (WIS) Portal 4.0 SP1 through 5.5 uses weak encryption, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading a credential file. |
| Schneider Electric Wonderware Information Server (WIS) Portal 4.0 SP1 through 5.5 uses weak encryption, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by reading a credential file. |
| A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.1.1 and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is the function makeToken of the file src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/controller/IndexController.java of the component Token Generation. The manipulation leads to password hash with insufficient computational effort. The attack may be launched remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| The Clorius Controls Java web client before 01.00.0009g allows remote attackers to discover credentials by sniffing the network for cleartext-equivalent traffic. |
| Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. Users of IPsec transparent encryption in Cilium may be vulnerable to cryptographic attacks that render the transparent encryption ineffective. In particular, Cilium is vulnerable to chosen plaintext, key recovery, replay attacks by a man-in-the-middle attacker. These attacks are possible due to an ESP sequence number collision when multiple nodes are configured with the same key. Fixed versions of Cilium use unique keys for each IPsec tunnel established between nodes, resolving all of the above attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.13.13, 1.14.9, and 1.15.3. |
| Inadequate encryption strength issue exists in SS1 Ver.16.0.0.10 and earlier (Media version:16.0.0a and earlier). If this vulnerability is exploited, a function that requires authentication may be accessed by a remote unauthenticated attacker. |
| A flaw has been found in editso fuso up to 1.0.4-beta.7. This affects the function PenetrateRsaAndAesHandshake of the file src/net/penetrate/handshake/mod.rs. This manipulation of the argument priv_key causes inadequate encryption strength. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitability is reported as difficult. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIPROTEC 5 6MD84 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD89 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SX82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SX85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UM85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP100) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BD-2FO (All versions < V9.62), SIPROTEC 5 Compact 7SX800 (CP050) (All versions < V9.64). The affected devices are supporting weak ciphers on several ports (443/tcp for web, 4443/tcp for DIGSI 5 and configurable port for syslog over TLS).
This could allow an unauthorized attacker in a man-in-the-middle position to decrypt any data passed over to and from those ports. |
| jsrsasign v11.1.0 was discovered to contain weak encryption. NOTE: this issue has been disputed by a third party who believes that CVE IDs can be assigned for key lengths in specific applications that use a library, and should not be assigned to the default key lengths in a library. This dispute is subject to review under CNA rules 4.1.4, 4.1.14, and other rules; the dispute tagging is not meant to recommend an outcome for this CVE Record. |
| Cryptographic issues in Windows Cryptographic Services allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network. |
