Total
1175 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-2422 | 1 Redhat | 6 Enterprise Linux, Keycloak, Openshift Container Platform and 3 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.5 Medium |
| A flaw was found in Keycloak. A Keycloak server configured to support mTLS authentication for OAuth/OpenID clients does not properly verify the client certificate chain. A client that possesses a proper certificate can authorize itself as any other client, therefore, access data that belongs to other clients. | ||||
| CVE-2023-29175 | 1 Fortinet | 2 Fortios, Fortiproxy | 2024-11-21 | 4.4 Medium |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiOS 6.2 all versions, 6.4 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.10, 7.2.0 and FortiProxy 1.2 all versions, 2.0 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.9, 7.2.0 through 7.2.3 may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the vulnerable device and the remote FortiGuard's map server. | ||||
| CVE-2023-28807 | 1 Zscaler | 1 Secure Internet And Saas Access | 2024-11-21 | 5.1 Medium |
| In Zscaler Internet Access (ZIA) a mismatch between Connect Host and Client Hello's Server Name Indication (SNI) enables attackers to evade network security controls by hiding their communications within legitimate traffic. | ||||
| CVE-2023-23588 | 2 Microchip, Siemens | 10 Maxview Storage Manager, Simatic Ipc1047, Simatic Ipc1047 Firmware and 7 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.2 Medium |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC IPC1047 (All versions), SIMATIC IPC1047E (All versions with maxView Storage Manager < 4.09.00.25611 on Windows), SIMATIC IPC647D (All versions), SIMATIC IPC647E (All versions with maxView Storage Manager < 4.09.00.25611 on Windows), SIMATIC IPC847D (All versions), SIMATIC IPC847E (All versions with maxView Storage Manager < 4.09.00.25611 on Windows). The Adaptec Maxview application on affected devices is using a non-unique TLS certificate across installations to protect the communication from the local browser to the local application. A local attacker may use this key to decrypt intercepted local traffic between the browser and the application and could perform a man-in-the-middle attack in order to modify data in transit. | ||||
| CVE-2023-23546 | 1 Milesight | 2 Ur32l, Ur32l Firmware | 2024-11-21 | 4.2 Medium |
| A misconfiguration vulnerability exists in the urvpn_client functionality of Milesight UR32L v32.3.0.5. A specially-crafted man-in-the-middle attack can lead to increased privileges. An attacker can perform a man-in-the-middle attack to trigger this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2023-22642 | 1 Fortinet | 2 Fortianalyzer, Fortimanager | 2024-11-21 | 6.8 Medium |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiAnalyzer and FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.1, 7.0.0 through 7.0.5, 6.4.8 through 6.4.10 may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the device and the remote FortiGuard server hosting outbreakalert ressources. | ||||
| CVE-2023-22081 | 3 Netapp, Oracle, Redhat | 12 Cloud Insights Acquisition Unit, Cloud Insights Storage Workload Security Agent, Graalvm For Jdk and 9 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.3 Medium |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle Java SE, Oracle GraalVM for JDK, Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition product of Oracle Java SE (component: JSSE). Supported versions that are affected are Oracle Java SE: 8u381, 8u381-perf, 11.0.20, 17.0.8, 21; Oracle GraalVM for JDK: 17.0.8, 21; Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition: 20.3.11, 21.3.7 and 22.3.3. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTPS to compromise Oracle Java SE, Oracle GraalVM for JDK, Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a partial denial of service (partial DOS) of Oracle Java SE, Oracle GraalVM for JDK, Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition. Note: This vulnerability applies to Java deployments, typically in clients running sandboxed Java Web Start applications or sandboxed Java applets, that load and run untrusted code (e.g., code that comes from the internet) and rely on the Java sandbox for security. This vulnerability does not apply to Java deployments, typically in servers, that load and run only trusted code (e.g., code installed by an administrator). CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.3 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L). | ||||
| CVE-2023-21265 | 1 Google | 1 Android | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 High |
| In multiple locations, there are root CA certificates which need to be disabled. This could lead to remote information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | ||||
| CVE-2023-1514 | 1 Hitachienergy | 1 Rtu500 Scripting Interface | 2024-11-21 | 7.4 High |
| A vulnerability exists in the component RTU500 Scripting interface. When a client connects to a server using TLS, the server presents a certificate. This certificate links a public key to the identity of the service and is signed by a Certification Authority (CA), allowing the client to validate that the remote service can be trusted and is not malicious. If the client does not validate the parameters of the certificate, then attackers could be able to spoof the identity of the service. An attacker could exploit the vulnerability by using faking the identity of a RTU500 device and intercepting the messages initiated via the RTU500 Scripting interface. | ||||
| CVE-2022-45597 | 1 Componentspace | 1 Saml | 2024-11-21 | 9.8 Critical |
| ComponentSpace.Saml2 4.4.0 Missing SSL Certificate Validation. NOTE: the vendor does not consider this a vulnerability because the report is only about use of certificates at the application layer (not the transport layer) and "Certificates are exchanged in a controlled fashion between entities within a trust relationship. This is why self-signed certificates may be used and why validating certificates isn’t as important as doing so for the transport layer certificates." | ||||
| CVE-2022-43892 | 3 Apple, Ibm, Microsoft | 3 Macos, Security Verify Privilege On-premises, Windows | 2024-11-21 | 3.7 Low |
| IBM Security Verify Privilege On-Premises 11.5 does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate which could disclose sensitive information which could aid further attacks against the system. IBM X-Force ID: 240455. | ||||
| CVE-2022-41747 | 2 Microsoft, Trendmicro | 2 Windows, Apex One | 2024-11-21 | 7.8 High |
| An improper certification validation vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex One agents could allow a local attacker to load a DLL file with system service privileges on affected installations. Please note: an attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target system in order to exploit this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2022-40147 | 1 Siemens | 1 Industrial Edge Management | 2024-11-21 | 7.4 High |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Industrial Edge Management (All versions < V1.5.1). The affected software does not properly validate the server certificate when initiating a TLS connection. This could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by interfering in the communication path between the client and the intended server. | ||||
| CVE-2022-3761 | 1 Openvpn | 1 Connect | 2024-11-21 | 5.9 Medium |
| OpenVPN Connect versions before 3.4.0.4506 (macOS) and OpenVPN Connect before 3.4.0.3100 (Windows) allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept configuration profile download requests which contains the users credentials | ||||
| CVE-2022-39948 | 1 Fortinet | 2 Fortios, Fortiproxy | 2024-11-21 | 4.4 Medium |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.3, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, 6.4 all versions, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions and FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.6, 2.0 all versions, 1.2 all versions may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the FortiOS/FortiProxy device and remote servers hosting threat feeds (when the latter are configured as Fabric connectors in FortiOS/FortiProxy) | ||||
| CVE-2022-37437 | 1 Splunk | 1 Splunk | 2024-11-21 | 7.4 High |
| When using Ingest Actions to configure a destination that resides on Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) in Splunk Web, TLS certificate validation is not correctly performed and tested for the destination. The vulnerability only affects connections between Splunk Enterprise and an Ingest Actions Destination through Splunk Web and only applies to environments that have configured TLS certificate validation. It does not apply to Destinations configured directly in the outputs.conf configuration file. The vulnerability affects Splunk Enterprise version 9.0.0 and does not affect versions below 9.0.0, including the 8.1.x and 8.2.x versions. | ||||
| CVE-2022-36881 | 2 Jenkins, Redhat | 2 Git Client, Openshift | 2024-11-21 | 8.1 High |
| Jenkins Git client Plugin 3.11.0 and earlier does not perform SSH host key verification when connecting to Git repositories via SSH, enabling man-in-the-middle attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2022-36173 | 1 Freshworks | 2 Freshservice Agent, Freshservice Probe | 2024-11-21 | 8.1 High |
| FreshService macOS Agent < 4.4.0 and FreshServce Linux Agent < 3.4.0 are vulnerable to TLS Man-in-The-Middle via the FreshAgent client and scheduled update service. | ||||
| CVE-2022-34865 | 1 F5 | 11 Big-ip Access Policy Manager, Big-ip Advanced Firewall Manager, Big-ip Analytics and 8 more | 2024-11-21 | 4.8 Medium |
| In BIG-IP Versions 15.1.x before 15.1.6.1, 14.1.x before 14.1.5, and all versions of 13.1.x, Traffic Intelligence feeds, which use HTTPS, do not verify the remote endpoint identity, allowing for potential data poisoning. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated. | ||||
| CVE-2022-34831 | 1 Primekey | 1 Ejbca | 2024-11-21 | 9.8 Critical |
| An issue was discovered in Keyfactor PrimeKey EJBCA before 7.9.0, related to possible inconsistencies in DNS identifiers submitted in an ACME order and the corresponding CSR submitted during finalization. During the ACME enrollment process, an order is submitted containing an identifier for one or multiple dnsNames. These are validated properly in the ACME challenge. However, if the validation passes, a non-compliant client can include additional dnsNames the CSR sent to the finalize endpoint, resulting in EJBCA issuing a certificate including the identifiers that were not validated. This occurs even if the certificate profile is configured to not allow a DN override by the CSR. | ||||