| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Use after free in Windows DWM Core Library allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by an Uncontrolled Search Path Element vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. Scope is changed. |
| A vulnerability allowing remote code execution (RCE) on the Backup Server by an authenticated domain user. |
| The Route OpenShift resource allows to define routes to make pods reachable at a subdomain through HAProxy. It was found that the checks performed on the spec.path YAML stanza in a Route document was insufficient and could allow a controlled injection of the HAProxy configuration. |
| Issue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)
processes attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK
cipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().
Impact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to
Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory
page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information
disclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.
The key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the
RFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped
key length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the
block length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from
an OID carried in the attacker's PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no
requirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects
a stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer
containing the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes
specified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.
Applications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()
(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS
data are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the
over-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication
succeeds.
The over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so
there is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the
allocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal
allocator.
The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue. |
| Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination
buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap
buffer overflow.
Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly
attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.
In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination
size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift
of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and
UNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts
for UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches
around 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30
characters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and
the subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the
one-byte allocation.
X.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),
whose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID
size limits cap the input length; no network protocol or
certificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.
Triggering the bug requires an application that calls
ASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers
a custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with
attacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.
For these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by
this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module
boundary. |
| Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could
trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification.
Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap
corruption, or potentially remote code execution.
When processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData
digestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may
incorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent
use of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free
condition.
In the common case this occurs when the application later calls
BIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending
on allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this
may result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application
contexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution.
Applications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL
PKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this
processing are not affected.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
