If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. If the application then behaves differently based on that in a way that is detectable to the remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Stitched ciphersuites are optimised implementations of certain commonly used ciphersuites. Also the application must call SSL_shutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2r (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2q).

Certain communication between PAN-OS and cloud-delivered services inadvertently use TLS 1.0, which is known to be a cryptographically weak protocol. These cloud services include Cortex Data Lake, the Customer Support Portal, and the Prisma Access infrastructure. Conditions required for exploitation of known TLS 1.0 weaknesses do not exist for the communication between PAN-OS and cloud-delivered services. We do not believe that any communication is impacted as a result of known attacks against TLS 1.0. This issue impacts: All versions of PAN-OS 8.0; PAN-OS 8.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 8.1.14; PAN-OS 9.0 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.0.9; PAN-OS 9.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.1.3. PAN-OS 7.1 is not impacted by this issue.

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in calmkart Django-sso-server up to 057247929a94ffc358788a37ab99e391379a4d15. This vulnerability affects the function gen_rsa_keys of the file common/crypto.py. The manipulation leads to inadequate encryption strength. The attack can be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. This product is using a rolling release to provide continious delivery. Therefore, no version details for affected nor updated releases are available.

Cryptographic issues in Windows Cryptographic Services allows an unauthorized 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.

In VOS compromised, an attacker at network endpoints can possibly view communications between an unsuspecting user and the service using man-in-the-middle attacks. Usage of unapproved SSH encryption protocols or cipher suites also violates the Data Protection TSR (Technical Security Requirements).

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.

In BIG-IP versions 15.1.0-15.1.0.4, 15.0.0-15.0.1.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, 13.1.0-13.1.3.4, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.2 and BIG-IQ versions 5.2.0-7.0.0, the host OpenSSH servers utilize keys of less than 2048 bits which are no longer considered secure.

The Fujitsu TLS library allows a man-in-the-middle attack. This affects Interstage Application Development Cycle Manager V10 and other versions, Interstage Application Server V12 and other versions, Interstage Business Application Manager V2 and other versions, Interstage Information Integrator V11 and other versions, Interstage Job Workload Server V8, Interstage List Works V10 and other versions, Interstage Studio V12 and other versions, Interstage Web Server Express V11, Linkexpress V5, Safeauthor V3, ServerView Resource Orchestrator V3, Systemwalker Cloud Business Service Management V1, Systemwalker Desktop Keeper V15, Systemwalker Desktop Patrol V15, Systemwalker IT Change Manager V14, Systemwalker Operation Manager V16 and other versions, Systemwalker Runbook Automation V15 and other versions, Systemwalker Security Control V1, and Systemwalker Software Configuration Manager V15.

"A vulnerability in the TLS protocol implementation of the Domino server could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to access sensitive information, aka a Return of Bleichenbacher's Oracle Threat (ROBOT) attack. An attacker could iteratively query a server running a vulnerable TLS stack implementation to perform cryptanalytic operations that may allow decryption of previously captured TLS sessions."

The swctrl service is used to detect and remotely manage PLANET Technology devices. For certain switch models, the authentication tokens used during communication with this service are encoded user passwords. Due to insufficient strength, unauthorized remote attackers who intercept the packets can directly crack them to obtain plaintext passwords.

SHA-1 is not collision resistant, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to conduct spoofing attacks, as demonstrated by attacks on the use of SHA-1 in TLS 1.2. NOTE: this CVE exists to provide a common identifier for referencing this SHA-1 issue; the existence of an identifier is not, by itself, a technology recommendation.

Dell Data Protection Central, version 19.9, contains an Inadequate Encryption Strength Vulnerability. An unauthenticated network attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, allowing an attacker to recover plaintext from a block of ciphertext.

The RC4 algorithm, as used in the TLS protocol and SSL protocol, has many single-byte biases, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct plaintext-recovery attacks via statistical analysis of ciphertext in a large number of sessions that use the same plaintext.

An issue was discovered in Couchbase Server before 7.2.5 and 7.6.0 before 7.6.1. It does not ensure that credentials are negotiated with the Key-Value (KV) service using SCRAM-SHA when remote link encryption is configured for Half-Secure.

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 < V8.90), 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 < V8.90), 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 < V8.90), 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 < V8.90), 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.

An issue was discovered in CipherMail Community Gateway Virtual Appliances and Professional/Enterprise Gateway Virtual Appliances versions 1.0.1 through 4.7.1-0 and CipherMail Webmail Messenger Virtual Appliances 1.1.1 through 3.1.1-0. A Diffie-Hellman parameter of insufficient size could allow man-in-the-middle compromise of communications between CipherMail products and external SMTP clients.

This vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of C-MORE HMI EA9 Firmware version 6.52 touch screen panels. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of passwords. When transmitting passwords, the process encrypts them in a recoverable format. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to disclose credentials, leading to further compromise. Was ZDI-CAN-10185.

The class FileTransfer implemented in Brocade SANnav before v2.3.1, v2.3.0a, uses the ssh-rsa signature scheme, which has a SHA-1 hash. The vulnerability could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack.

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 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.

A key length vulnerability in the implementation of the SRTP 128-bit key on Mitel 6800 and 6900 SIP series phones, versions 5.1.0.2051 SP2 and earlier, could allow an attacker to launch a man-in-the-middle attack when SRTP is used in a call. A successful exploit may allow the attacker to intercept sensitive information.

IBM Sterling Secure Proxy 6.0.0.0 through 6.0.3.1, 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.0.0, and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.

The BigFix WebUI uses weak cipher suites.

Weak ciphers in Softing smartLink SW-HT before 1.30 are enabled during secure communication (SSL).

WD Discovery software executable files were signed with an unsafe SHA-1 hashing algorithm. An attacker could use this weakness to create forged certificate signatures due to the use of a hashing algorithm that is not collision-free. This could thereby impact the confidentiality of user content. This issue affects: Western Digital WD Discovery WD Discovery Desktop App versions prior to 4.4.396 on Mac; WD Discovery Desktop App versions prior to 4.4.396 on Windows.

Passwords are not adequately encrypted during the communication process between all versions of LS Industrial Systems (LSIS) Co. Ltd LS Electric XG5000 software prior to V4.0 and LS Electric PLCs: all versions of XGK-CPUU/H/A/S/E prior to V3.50, all versions of XGI-CPUU/UD/H/S/E prior to V3.20, all versions of XGR-CPUH prior to V1.80, all versions of XGB-XBMS prior to V3.00, all versions of XGB-XBCH prior to V1.90, and all versions of XGB-XECH prior to V1.30. This would allow an attacker to identify and decrypt the password of the affected PLCs by sniffing the PLC’s communication traffic.

Bramble Handshake Protocol (BHP) in Briar before 1.5.3 is not forward secure: eavesdroppers can decrypt network traffic between two accounts if they later compromise both accounts. NOTE: the eavesdropping is typically impractical because BHP runs over an encrypted session that uses the Tor hidden service protocol.

GeoVision Door Access Control device family employs shared cryptographic private keys for SSH and HTTPS. Attackers may conduct MITM attack with the derived keys and plaintext recover of encrypted messages.

ABB eSOMS versions 4.0 to 6.0.3 accept connections using medium strength ciphers. If a connection is enabled using such a cipher, an attacker might be able to eavesdrop and/or intercept the connection.