Adobe Flash Player before 10.3.183.5 on Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and Solaris and before 10.3.186.3 on Android, and Adobe AIR before 2.7.1 on Windows and Mac OS X and before 2.7.1.1961 on Android, allows remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy and obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors.

A certain Microsoft Windows Media Player 9 Series ActiveX control allows remote attackers to view and manipulate the Media Library on the local system via HTML script.

NetDSL ADSL Modem 800 with Microsoft Network firmware 5.5.11 allows remote attackers to gain access to configuration menus by sniffing undocumented usernames and passwords from network traffic.

IBM Spectrum Protect Plus 10.1.0 through 10.1.7 uses Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) which could allow an attacker to carry out privileged actions and retrieve sensitive information as the domain name is not being limited to only trusted domains. IBM X-Force ID: 196344.

IBM Spectrum Protect Operations Center 7.1.0.000 through 7.1.10 and 8.1.0.000 through 8.1.9 may allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the system, caused by improper validation of data prior to export. IBM X-Force ID: 186782.

IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0 connects to a MongoDB server. MongoDB, a document-oriented database system, is listening on the remote port, and it is configured to allow connections without password authentication. A remote attacker can gain unauthorized access to the database. IBM X-Force ID: 184600.

IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0 connects to a Redis server. The Redis server, an in-memory data structure store, running on the remote host is not protected by password authentication. A remote attacker can exploit this to gain unauthorized access to the server. IBM X-Force ID: 186401.

IBM Connect:Direct for UNIX 6.1.0, 6.0.0, 4.3.0, and 4.2.0 can allow a local or remote user to obtain an authenticated CLI session due to improper authentication methods. IBM X-Force ID: 188516.

IBM Security Guardium Insights 2.0.1 could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information or perform unauthorized actions due to improper authenciation mechanisms. IBM X-Force ID: 174403.

IBM API Connect 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.8.10 could potentially leak sensitive information or allow for data corruption due to plain text transmission of sensitive information across the network. IBM X-Force ID: 190990.

A vulnerability in the Spectrum Scale 5.1 core component and IBM Elastic Storage System 6.1 could allow unauthorized access to user data or injection of arbitrary data in the communication protocol. IBM X-Force ID: 191600.

keypair is a a RSA PEM key generator written in javascript. keypair implements a lot of cryptographic primitives on its own or by borrowing from other libraries where possible, including node-forge. An issue was discovered where this library was generating identical RSA keys used in SSH. This would mean that the library is generating identical P, Q (and thus N) values which, in practical terms, is impossible with RSA-2048 keys. Generating identical values, repeatedly, usually indicates an issue with poor random number generation, or, poor handling of CSPRNG output. Issue 1: Poor random number generation (`GHSL-2021-1012`). The library does not rely entirely on a platform provided CSPRNG, rather, it uses it's own counter-based CMAC approach. Where things go wrong is seeding the CMAC implementation with "true" random data in the function `defaultSeedFile`. In order to seed the AES-CMAC generator, the library will take two different approaches depending on the JavaScript execution environment. In a browser, the library will use [`window.crypto.getRandomValues()`](https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L971). However, in a nodeJS execution environment, the `window` object is not defined, so it goes down a much less secure solution, also of which has a bug in it. It does look like the library tries to use node's CSPRNG when possible unfortunately, it looks like the `crypto` object is null because a variable was declared with the same name, and set to `null`. So the node CSPRNG path is never taken. However, when `window.crypto.getRandomValues()` is not available, a Lehmer LCG random number generator is used to seed the CMAC counter, and the LCG is seeded with `Math.random`. While this is poor and would likely qualify in a security bug in itself, it does not explain the extreme frequency in which duplicate keys occur. The main flaw: The output from the Lehmer LCG is encoded incorrectly. The specific [line][https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L1008] with the flaw is: `b.putByte(String.fromCharCode(next & 0xFF))` The [definition](https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L350-L352) of `putByte` is `util.ByteBuffer.prototype.putByte = function(b) {this.data += String.fromCharCode(b);};`. Simplified, this is `String.fromCharCode(String.fromCharCode(next & 0xFF))`. The double `String.fromCharCode` is almost certainly unintentional and the source of weak seeding. Unfortunately, this does not result in an error. Rather, it results most of the buffer containing zeros. Since we are masking with 0xFF, we can determine that 97% of the output from the LCG are converted to zeros. The only outputs that result in meaningful values are outputs 48 through 57, inclusive. The impact is that each byte in the RNG seed has a 97% chance of being 0 due to incorrect conversion. When it is not, the bytes are 0 through 9. In summary, there are three immediate concerns: 1. The library has an insecure random number fallback path. Ideally the library would require a strong CSPRNG instead of attempting to use a LCG and `Math.random`. 2. The library does not correctly use a strong random number generator when run in NodeJS, even though a strong CSPRNG is available. 3. The fallback path has an issue in the implementation where a majority of the seed data is going to effectively be zero. Due to the poor random number generation, keypair generates RSA keys that are relatively easy to guess. This could enable an attacker to decrypt confidential messages or gain authorized access to an account belonging to the victim.