The SSL protocol, as used in certain configurations in Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera, and other products, encrypts data by using CBC mode with chained initialization vectors, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain plaintext HTTP headers via a blockwise chosen-boundary attack (BCBA) on an HTTPS session, in conjunction with JavaScript code that uses (1) the HTML5 WebSocket API, (2) the Java URLConnection API, or (3) the Silverlight WebClient API, aka a "BEAST" attack.

IBM Spectrum Copy Data Management 2.2.13 and earlier uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 211242.

IBM Sterling Connect:Direct Web Services 1.0 and 6.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 209508.

IBM Data Risk Manager (iDNA) 2.0.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 207980.

IBM Sterling B2B Integrator Standard Edition 5.2.0. 0 through 6.1.1.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 210171.

IBM WebShere MQ 9.1.0.0, 9.1.0.1, 9.1.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 152925.

IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence 5.2 through 5.2.4.1 Virtual Appliance supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties. IBM X-Force ID: 153388.

IBM DataPower Gateway 7.6.0.0 through 7.6.0.10, 7.5.2.0 through 7.5.2.17, 7.5.1.0 through 7.5.1.17, 7.5.0.0 through 7.5.0.18, and 7.7.0.0 through 7.7.1.3 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 144891.

IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager 3.0 through 3.0.0.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 148512.

IBM Rational Engineering Lifecycle Manager 6.0 through 6.0.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 143798.

IBM Security Guardium Big Data Intelligence (SonarG) 3.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 139003.

IBM API Connect 2018.1 and 2018.4.1.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 155078.

IBM Security Access Manager Appliance 9.0.1.0, 9.0.2.0, 9.0.3.0, 9.0.4.0, and 9.0.5.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 150018.

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (IBM Spectrum Protect 7.1 and 8.1) uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 142649.

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.

lighttpd before 1.4.34, when SNI is enabled, configures weak SSL ciphers, which makes it easier for remote attackers to hijack sessions by inserting packets into the client-server data stream or obtain sensitive information by sniffing the network.

IBM Cloud Pak for Applications 4.3 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 195031.

IBM Cloud Pak for Applications 4.3 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 195361.

IBM Security Access Manager Appliance 10.0.0.0, 10.0.1.0, 10.0.2.0, and 10.0.3.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 225081.

IBM Spectrum Scale 5.1.0 through 5.1.3.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 221012.

IBM Security Guardium Big Data Intelligence (SonarG) 4.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 161418.

IBM API Connect 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.8.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 159944.

IBM Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 133557.

IBM Cognos Controller 10.3.0, 10.3.1, 10.4.0, and 10.4.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 158880.

IBM Security Access Manager 9.0.1 through 9.0.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 158512.

IBM Security Guardium Data Encryption (GDE) 3.0.0.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 158577.

IBM Qradar Advisor 1.1 through 2.5 with Watson uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 166206.

IBM DB2 for Linux, UNIX and Windows (includes DB2 Connect Server) 9.7, 10.1, 10.5, and 11.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 158092.

IBM QRadar SIEM 7.2 and 7.3 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 134177.

IBM InfoSphere Streams 4.2.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 134632.

IBM BigFix Compliance Analytics 1.9.79 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 123431.

IBM QRadar SIEM 7.3 and 7.4 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196074.

IBM Security Identity Governance Virtual Appliance 5.2 through 5.2.3.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 126859.

The encrypt/decrypt functions in Ruby on Rails 2.3 are vulnerable to padding oracle attacks.

Inappropriate implementation in Memory in Google Chrome prior to 94.0.4606.71 allowed a remote attacker to obtain potentially sensitive information from process memory via a crafted HTML page.

IBM Spectrum Copy Data Management 2.2.13 and earlier could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by the improper handling of requests for Spectrum Copy Data Management Admin Console. By sending a specially-crafted request, a remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 214524.

An issue is present in Apache ZooKeeper 1.0.0 to 3.4.13 and 3.5.0-alpha to 3.5.4-beta. ZooKeeper’s getACL() command doesn’t check any permission when retrieves the ACLs of the requested node and returns all information contained in the ACL Id field as plaintext string. DigestAuthenticationProvider overloads the Id field with the hash value that is used for user authentication. As a consequence, if Digest Authentication is in use, the unsalted hash value will be disclosed by getACL() request for unauthenticated or unprivileged users.

The renderer implementation in Google Chrome before 51.0.2704.63 does not properly restrict public exposure of classes, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via vectors related to extensions.

uri.js in Google V8 before 5.1.281.26, as used in Google Chrome before 51.0.2704.63, uses an incorrect array type, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by calling the decodeURI function and leveraging "type confusion."

IBM WebSphere MQ 6.0 before 6.0.2.9 and 7.0 before 7.0.1.1 does not encrypt the username and password in the security parameters field, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by sniffing the network traffic from a .NET client application.

IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.1.1.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.

Thunderbird ignored the configuration to require STARTTLS security for an SMTP connection. A MITM could perform a downgrade attack to intercept transmitted messages, or could take control of the authenticated session to execute SMTP commands chosen by the MITM. If an unprotected authentication method was configured, the MITM could obtain the authentication credentials, too. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 91.2.

Inappropriate implementation in Background Fetch API in Google Chrome prior to 94.0.4606.54 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page.

Inappropriate implementation in WebAuthentication in Google Chrome prior to 96.0.4664.45 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page.

Inappropriate implementation in Sandbox in Google Chrome prior to 94.0.4606.81 allowed a remote attacker to potentially bypass site isolation via Windows.

IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 7.0 before 7.0.0.11, when addNode -trace is used during node federation, allows attackers to obtain sensitive information about CIMMetadataCollectorImpl trace actions by reading the addNode.log file.

Under non-standard configurations, IBM WebSphere MQ might send password data in clear text over the network. This data could be intercepted using man in the middle techniques.

IBM BigFix Remote Control before 9.1.3 does not properly restrict the set of available encryption algorithms, which makes it easier for remote attackers to defeat cryptographic protection mechanisms by sniffing the network and performing calculations on encrypted data.

IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1 before 6.1.0.39 and 7.0 before 7.0.0.17 uses a weak WS-Security XML encryption algorithm, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain plaintext data from a (1) JAX-RPC or (2) JAX-WS Web Services request via unspecified vectors related to a "decryption attack."

If an async request was completed by the application at the same time as the container triggered the async timeout, a race condition existed that could result in a user seeing a response intended for a different user. An additional issue was present in the NIO and NIO2 connectors that did not correctly track the closure of the connection when an async request was completed by the application and timed out by the container at the same time. This could also result in a user seeing a response intended for another user. Versions Affected: Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M9 to 9.0.9 and 8.5.5 to 8.5.31.