Improper Certificate Validation

Using the ability to perform a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack, which indicates a lack of hostname verification, sensitive account information was able to be intercepted. In this specific scenario, the application's network traffic was intercepted using a proxy server set up in 'transparent' mode while a certificate with an invalid hostname was active. The Android application was found to have hostname verification issues during the server setup and login flows; however, the application did not process requests post-login.Show less

Improper validation of the Apple certificate URL in the Apple Game Center authentication adapter allows attackers to bypass authentication, making the server vulnerable to DoS attacks. The vulnerability has been fixed by improving the URL validation and adding additional checks of the resource the URL points to before downloading it.Show less

The function `OCSP_basic_verify` verifies the signer certificate on an OCSP response. In the case where the (non-default) flag OCSP_NOCHECKS is used then the response will be positive (meaning a successful verification) even in the case where the response signing certificate fails to verify. It is anticipated that most users of `OCSP_basic_verify` will not use the OCSP_NOCHECKS flag. In this case the `OCSP_basic_verify` function will return a negative value (indicating a fatal error) in the case of a certificate verification failure. The normal expected return value in this case would be 0. This issue also impacts the command line OpenSSL "ocsp" application. When verifying an ocsp response with the "-no_cert_checks" option the command line application will report that the verification is successful even though it has in fact failed. In this case the incorrect successful response will also be accompanied by error messages showing the failure and contradicting the apparently successful result. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2).Show less

Versions of Motorola Ready For and Motorola Device Help Android applications prior to 2021-04-08 do not properly verify the server certificate which could lead to the communication channel being accessible by an attacker.Show less

Dell PowerScale OneFS, 8.2.x-9.3.x, contains a Improper Certificate Validation. A unauthenticated remote attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to a man-in-the-middle capture of administrative credentials.Show less

In A-GPS, there is a possible man in the middle attack due to improper certificate validation. This could lead to remote information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06461919; Issue ID: ALPS06461919.Show less

In ccu, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to a missing certificate validation. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is no needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06183315; Issue ID: ALPS06183315.Show less

WeeChat (aka Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) 3.2 to 3.4 before 3.4.1 does not properly verify the TLS certificate of the server, after certain GnuTLS options are changed, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof a TLS chat server via an arbitrary certificate. NOTE: this only affects situations where weechat.network.gnutls_ca_system or weechat.network.gnutls_ca_user is changed without a WeeChat restart.Show less

An issue has been discovered affecting GitLab versions prior to 14.4.5, between 14.5.0 and 14.5.3, and between 14.6.0 and 14.6.1. GitLab does not validate SSL certificates for some of external CI services which makes it possible to perform MitM attacks on connections to these external services.Show less

A flaw was found in all versions of kubeclient up to (but not including) v4.9.3, the Ruby client for Kubernetes REST API, in the way it parsed kubeconfig files. When the kubeconfig file does not configure custom CA to verify certs, kubeclient ends up accepting any certificate (it wrongly returns VERIFY_NONE). Ruby applications that leverage kubeclient to parse kubeconfig files are susceptible to Man-in-the-middle attacks (MITM).Show less

ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer.Show less

"Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.8.0 through 1.8.8, and 1.9.3 allowed the PKI secrets engine under certain configurations to issue wildcard certificates to authorized users for a specified domain, even if the PKI role policy attribute allow_subdomains is set to false. Fixed in Vault Enterprise 1.8.9 and 1.9.4.Show less

Improper check for certificate revocation in i-FILTER Ver.10.45R01 and earlier, i-FILTER Ver.9.50R10 and earlier, i-FILTER Browser & Cloud MultiAgent for Windows Ver.4.93R04 and earlier, and D-SPA (Ver.3 / Ver.4) using i-FILTER allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to conduct a man-in-the-middle attack and eavesdrop on an encrypted communication.Show less

A flaw was found in Cockpit in versions prior to 260 in the way it handles the certificate verification performed by the System Security Services Daemon (SSSD). This flaw allows client certificates to authenticate successfully, regardless of the Certificate Revocation List (CRL) configuration or the certificate status. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality.Show less

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. A new variant of the POODLE attack has left a third-party component vulnerable due to the implementation flaws of the CBC encryption mode in TLS 1.0 to 1.2. If an attacker were to exploit this, they could act as a man-in-the-middle and eavesdrop on encrypted communications.Show less