| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV
(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.
Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
to the victim's application using these ciphers.
AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD
modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated
but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte
tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only
if the tag is verified succesfully.
In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is
computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.
If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without
invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received
ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its
all-zeros value.
When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty
ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not
know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's
necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without
resetting the key.
AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since
OpenSSL 3.2.
No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support
either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must
implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the
ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| Windows Kerberos Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Issue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42)
peer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership.
Impact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carrying the
victim's p and g parameters, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the
cofactor (p−1)/q_local), and a public value Y of order r can recover the
victim's private key after a small number of key exchange attempts.
When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the
subgroup membership check Y^q ≡ 1 (mod p) is performed using the peer's
own q parameter, not the local key's q. The peer's domain parameters are
then matched against the domain parameters of the private key, but the value
of q is not compared.
A malicious peer who presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim's p, g,
a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor), and a public
value Y of order r passes all checks. The shared secret then takes only
r distinct values, leaking priv mod r. Repeating for each small-prime
factor of the cofactor and combining via CRT recovers the full private
key (Lim–Lee / small-subgroup-confinement attack).
The realistic attack surface is narrow: principally CMP deployments with
long-lived RA/CA DHX keys and bespoke enterprise or government applications
using X9.42 DHX static keys with interactive protocols and therefore this
issue was assigned Low severity.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are affected by this
issue. |
| An improper implementation of TLS certificate validation vulnerability found in ReadyCloud client app which can allow an attacker to perform attacker-in-the-middle (MiTM) style attacks impacting product's confidentiality. This vulnerability affects the listed NETGEAR models. |
| Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the
public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied
initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded.
Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the
same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller,
resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the
same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag
depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or
ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a
single captured message.
OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming
interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level
one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends
against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and
EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes
the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing
data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an
AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset
state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV.
If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the
authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and
clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the
plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and
verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV)
pair.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a
TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case.
Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD
API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only
applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher()
one-shot API are vulnerable.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by
this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected
preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes
the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword.
Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more
preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group
was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares.
This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups,
if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by
the server.
If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to
interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps
adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the
'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups
were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not
sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple
was mutually supported.
As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported
post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's
configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the
only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction).
OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS
1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat'
list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure.
If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server
the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by
the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been
more preferred, if included.
The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly
equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among
the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group
from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares,
the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello
Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group.
The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in
default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the
various desired groups and group 'tuples'.
No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies
outside the FIPS boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released.
OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released.
OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue. |
| In MbedTLS 3.3.0 before 3.6.4, mbedtls_lms_verify may accept invalid signatures if hash computation fails and internal errors go unchecked, enabling LMS (Leighton-Micali Signature) forgery in a fault scenario. Specifically, unchecked return values in mbedtls_lms_verify allow an attacker (who can induce a hardware hash accelerator fault) to bypass LMS signature verification by reusing stale stack data, resulting in acceptance of an invalid signature. In mbedtls_lms_verify, the return values of the internal Merkle tree functions create_merkle_leaf_value and create_merkle_internal_value are not checked. These functions return an integer that indicates whether the call succeeded or not. If a failure occurs, the output buffer (Tc_candidate_root_node) may remain uninitialized, and the result of the signature verification is unpredictable. When the software implementation of SHA-256 is used, these functions will not fail. However, with hardware-accelerated hashing, an attacker could use fault injection against the accelerator to bypass verification. |
| An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.core.mail.backends.smtp.EmailBackend` in Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake when `fail_silently=True`, which allows on-path network attackers to read email content via cleartext interception.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Kasper Dupont for reporting this issue. |
| The netty incubator codec.bhttp is a java language binary http parser. Prior to version 0.0.22.FInal, the codec-ohttp implementation of draft-ietf-ohai-chunked-ohttp does not verify that a cryptographically-signed final chunk was received before the outer HTTP body terminates. An on-path adversary (the OHTTP relay itself, or any MITM on the relay↔gateway or relay↔client transport) can forward a prefix of a legitimate chunked-OHTTP message—cut at a non-final chunk boundary—and close the outer body cleanly, producing no decryption error and no exception in the receiving application. Version 0.0.22.Final fixes the issue. |
| All versions of the package sjcl are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature due to missing point-on-curve validation in sjcl.ecc.basicKey.publicKey(). An attacker can recover a victim's ECDH private key by sending crafted off-curve public keys and observing ECDH outputs. The dhJavaEc() function directly returns the raw x-coordinate of the scalar multiplication result (no hashing), providing a plaintext oracle without requiring any decryption feedback. |
| Issue summary: When using the low-level OCB API directly with AES-NI or<br>other hardware-accelerated code paths, inputs whose length is not a multiple<br>of 16 bytes can leave the final partial block unencrypted and unauthenticated.<br><br>Impact summary: The trailing 1-15 bytes of a message may be exposed in<br>cleartext on encryption and are not covered by the authentication tag,<br>allowing an attacker to read or tamper with those bytes without detection.<br><br>The low-level OCB encrypt and decrypt routines in the hardware-accelerated<br>stream path process full 16-byte blocks but do not advance the input/output<br>pointers. The subsequent tail-handling code then operates on the original<br>base pointers, effectively reprocessing the beginning of the buffer while<br>leaving the actual trailing bytes unprocessed. The authentication checksum<br>also excludes the true tail bytes.<br><br>However, typical OpenSSL consumers using EVP are not affected because the<br>higher-level EVP and provider OCB implementations split inputs so that full<br>blocks and trailing partial blocks are processed in separate calls, avoiding<br>the problematic code path. Additionally, TLS does not use OCB ciphersuites.<br>The vulnerability only affects applications that call the low-level<br>CRYPTO_ocb128_encrypt() or CRYPTO_ocb128_decrypt() functions directly with<br>non-block-aligned lengths in a single call on hardware-accelerated builds.<br>For these reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity.<br><br>The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected<br>by this issue, as OCB mode is not a FIPS-approved algorithm.<br><br>OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue.<br><br>OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not affected by this issue. |
| Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking
excessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow.
Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to
generate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications
that use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check()
to check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays.
Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from
an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service.
While DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817),
DH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore
vulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters.
Likewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large
P, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q.
An application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and
supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be
vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack.
DH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of
other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other
functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this
are DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate().
Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the
"-pubcheck" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.
The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue. |
| Issue summary: A bug has been identified in the processing of key and
initialisation vector (IV) lengths. This can lead to potential truncation
or overruns during the initialisation of some symmetric ciphers.
Impact summary: A truncation in the IV can result in non-uniqueness,
which could result in loss of confidentiality for some cipher modes.
When calling EVP_EncryptInit_ex2(), EVP_DecryptInit_ex2() or
EVP_CipherInit_ex2() the provided OSSL_PARAM array is processed after
the key and IV have been established. Any alterations to the key length,
via the "keylen" parameter or the IV length, via the "ivlen" parameter,
within the OSSL_PARAM array will not take effect as intended, potentially
causing truncation or overreading of these values. The following ciphers
and cipher modes are impacted: RC2, RC4, RC5, CCM, GCM and OCB.
For the CCM, GCM and OCB cipher modes, truncation of the IV can result in
loss of confidentiality. For example, when following NIST's SP 800-38D
section 8.2.1 guidance for constructing a deterministic IV for AES in
GCM mode, truncation of the counter portion could lead to IV reuse.
Both truncations and overruns of the key and overruns of the IV will
produce incorrect results and could, in some cases, trigger a memory
exception. However, these issues are not currently assessed as security
critical.
Changing the key and/or IV lengths is not considered to be a common operation
and the vulnerable API was recently introduced. Furthermore it is likely that
application developers will have spotted this problem during testing since
decryption would fail unless both peers in the communication were similarly
vulnerable. For these reasons we expect the probability of an application being
vulnerable to this to be quite low. However if an application is vulnerable then
this issue is considered very serious. For these reasons we have assessed this
issue as Moderate severity overall.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue.
The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this because
the issue lies outside of the FIPS provider boundary.
OpenSSL 3.1 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
crypto: krb5enc - fix async decrypt skipping hash verification
krb5enc_dispatch_decrypt() sets req->base.complete as the skcipher
callback, which is the caller's own completion handler. When the
skcipher completes asynchronously, this signals "done" to the caller
without executing krb5enc_dispatch_decrypt_hash(), completely bypassing
the integrity verification (hash check).
Compare with the encrypt path which correctly uses
krb5enc_encrypt_done as an intermediate callback to chain into the
hash computation on async completion.
Fix by adding krb5enc_decrypt_done as an intermediate callback that
chains into krb5enc_dispatch_decrypt_hash() upon async skcipher
completion, matching the encrypt path's callback pattern.
Also fix EBUSY/EINPROGRESS handling throughout: remove
krb5enc_request_complete() which incorrectly swallowed EINPROGRESS
notifications that must be passed up to callers waiting on backlogged
requests, and add missing EBUSY checks in krb5enc_encrypt_ahash_done
for the dispatch_encrypt return value.
Unset MAY_BACKLOG on the async completion path so the user won't
see back-to-back EINPROGRESS notifications. |
| Missing critical step in authentication in Apache HttpClient 5.6 allows an attacker to cause the client to accept SCRAM-SHA-256 authentication without proper mutual authentication verification. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 5.6.1, which fixes this issue. |
| OpenClaw before 2026.3.28 contains a webhook replay vulnerability in Plivo V3 signature verification that canonicalizes query ordering for signatures but hashes raw URLs for replay detection. Attackers can reorder query parameters to bypass replay cache detection and trigger duplicate voice-call processing with a captured valid signed webhook. |
| Deno is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime. Before 2.6.0, node:crypto doesn't finalize cipher. The vulnerability allows an attacker to have infinite encryptions. This can lead to naive attempts at brute forcing, as well as more refined attacks with the goal to learn the server secrets. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.6.0. |
| SEPPmail Secure Email Gateway before version 15.0.3 allows an attacker to forge a GINA-encrypted email. |
| A user can tell curl >= 7.20.0 and <= 7.78.0 to require a successful upgrade to TLS when speaking to an IMAP, POP3 or FTP server (`--ssl-reqd` on the command line or`CURLOPT_USE_SSL` set to `CURLUSESSL_CONTROL` or `CURLUSESSL_ALL` withlibcurl). This requirement could be bypassed if the server would return a properly crafted but perfectly legitimate response.This flaw would then make curl silently continue its operations **withoutTLS** contrary to the instructions and expectations, exposing possibly sensitive data in clear text over the network. |
| ZF FROST is a Rust implementation of FROST (Flexible Round-Optimised Schnorr Threshold signatures). In versions 2.0.0 through 2.1.0, refresh shares with smaller min_signers will reduce security of group. The inability to change min_signers (i.e. the threshold) with the refresh share functionality (frost_core::keys::refresh module) was not made clear to users. Using a smaller value would not decrease the threshold, and attempts to sign using a smaller threshold would fail. Additionally, after refreshing the shares with a smaller threshold, it would still be possible to sign with the original threshold, potentially causing a security loss to the participant's shares. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.0. |
