SSL virtual servers in F5 BIG-IP systems 10.x before 10.2.4 HF9, 11.x before 11.2.1 HF12, 11.3.0 before HF10, 11.4.0 before HF8, 11.4.1 before HF5, 11.5.0 before HF5, and 11.5.1 before HF5, when used with third-party Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) accelerator cards, might allow remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a timing side-channel attack.

Buffer overflow in the mcpq daemon in F5 BIG-IP systems 10.x before 10.2.4 HF12, 11.x before 11.2.1 HF15, 11.3.x, 11.4.x before 11.4.1 HF9, 11.5.x before 11.5.2 HF1, and 11.6.0 before HF4, and Enterprise Manager 2.1.0 through 2.3.0 and 3.x before 3.1.1 HF5 allows remote authenticated administrators to cause a denial of service via unspecified vectors.

The Configuration utility in F5 BIG-IP systems 11.0.x, 11.1.x, 11.2.x before 11.2.1 HF16, 11.3.x, 11.4.x before 11.4.1 HF10, 11.5.x before 11.5.4 HF2, 1.6.x before 11.6.1, and 12.0.0 before HF1 allows remote administrators to read Access Policy Manager (APM) access logs via unspecified vectors.

F5 BIG-IP LTM, AFM, Analytics, APM, ASM, Link Controller, and PEM 11.3.x, 11.4.x before 11.4.1 HF10, 11.5.x before 11.5.4, 11.6.x before 11.6.1, and 12.x before 12.0.0 HF1; BIG-IP AAM 11.4.x before 11.4.1 HF10, 11.5.x before 11.5.4, 11.6.x before 11.6.1, and 12.x before 12.0.0 HF1; BIG-IP DNS 12.x before 12.0.0 HF1; BIG-IP Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 11.3.0; BIG-IP GTM 11.3.x, 11.4.x before 11.4.1 HF10, 11.5.x before 11.5.4, and 11.6.x before 11.6.1; BIG-IP PSM 11.3.x and 11.4.x before 11.4.1 HF10; Enterprise Manager 3.0.0 through 3.1.1; BIG-IQ Cloud and BIG-IQ Security 4.0.0 through 4.5.0; BIG-IQ Device 4.2.0 through 4.5.0; BIG-IQ ADC 4.5.0; BIG-IQ Centralized Management 4.6.0; and BIG-IQ Cloud and Orchestration 1.0.0 on the 3900, 6900, 8900, 8950, 11000, 11050, PB100 and PB200 platforms, when software SYN cookies are configured on virtual servers, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (High-Speed Bridge hang) via an invalid TCP segment.

Incomplete blacklist vulnerability in the Configuration utility in F5 BIG-IP LTM, Analytics, APM, ASM, GTM, Link Controller, and PSM 11.x before 11.2.1 HF11, 11.3.x, 11.4.0 before HF8, and 11.4.1 before HF6; BIG-IP AAM 11.4.0 before HF8 and 11.4.1 before HF6; BIG-IP AFM and PEM 11.3.x, 11.4.0 before HF8, and 11.4.1 before HF6; and BIG-IP Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 11.x before 11.2.1 HF11 and 11.3.0 allows remote authenticated users to upload files via uploadImage.php.

The vCMP host in F5 BIG-IP Analytics, APM, ASM, GTM, Link Controller, and LTM 11.0.0 before 11.6.0, BIG-IP AAM 11.4.0 before 11.6.0, BIG-IP AFM and PEM 11.3.0 before 11.6.0, BIG-IP Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 11.0.0 through 11.3.0, BIG-IP PSM 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via "malicious traffic."

The FastL4 virtual server in F5 BIG-IP LTM, AAM, AFM, Analytics, APM, ASM, GTM, Link Controller, and PEM 11.3.0 through 11.5.2 and 11.6.0 through 11.6.0 HF4, BIG-IP Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 11.2.1 through 11.3.0, and BIG-IP PSM 11.2.1 through 11.4.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (Traffic Management Microkernel restart) via a fragmented packet.

Directory traversal vulnerability in the configuration utility in F5 BIG-IP before 12.0.0 and Enterprise Manager 3.0.0 through 3.1.1 allows remote authenticated users to access arbitrary files in the web root via unspecified vectors.

The SSL profiles component in F5 BIG-IP LTM, APM, and ASM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, AAM 11.4.0 through 11.5.1, AFM 11.3.0 through 11.5.1, Analytics 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 10.1.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.3.0, PEM 11.3.0 through 11.6.0, and PSM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 and BIG-IQ Cloud and Security 4.0.0 through 4.4.0 and Device 4.2.0 through 4.4.0, when using TLS 1.x before TLS 1.2, does not properly check CBC padding bytes when terminating connections, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, a variant of CVE-2014-3566 (aka POODLE). NOTE: the scope of this identifier is limited to the F5 implementation only. Other vulnerable implementations should receive their own CVE ID, since this is not a vulnerability within the design of TLS 1.x itself.

Multiple XML External Entity (XXE) vulnerabilities in the Configuration utility in F5 BIG-IP LTM, ASM, GTM, and Link Controller 11.0 through 11.6.0 and 10.0.0 through 10.2.4, AAM 11.4.0 through 11.6.0, ARM 11.3.0 through 11.6.0, Analytics 11.0.0 through 11.6.0, APM and Edge Gateway 11.0.0 through 11.6.0 and 10.1.0 through 10.2.4, PEM 11.3.0 through 11.6.0, PSM 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 and 10.0.0 through 10.2.4, and WOM 11.0.0 through 11.3.0 and 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and Enterprise Manager 3.0.0 through 3.1.1 and 2.1.0 through 2.3.0 allow remote authenticated users to read arbitrary files and cause a denial of service via a crafted request, as demonstrated using (1) viewList or (2) deal elements.

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in tmui/dashboard/echo.jsp in the Configuration utility in F5 BIG-IP LTM, APM, ASM, GTM, and Link Controller 11.0.0 before 11.6.0 and 10.1.0 through 10.2.4, AAM 11.4.0 before 11.6.0, AFM and PEM 11.3.0 before 11.6.0, Analytics 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 11.0.0 through 11.3.0 and 10.1.0 through 10.2.4, and PSM 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 and 10.1.0 through 10.2.4 and Enterprise Manager 3.0.0 through 3.1.1 and 2.1.0 through 2.3.0 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in list.jsp in the Configuration utility in F5 BIG-IP LTM, AFM, Analytics, APM, ASM, GTM, and Link Controller 11.2.1 through 11.5.1, AAM 11.4.0 through 11.5.1 PEM 11.3.0 through 11.5.1, PSM 11.2.1 through 11.4.1, WebAccelerator and WOM 11.2.1 through 11.3.0, and Enterprise Manager 3.0.0 through 3.1.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified parameters.

It is unexpected and not allowed to call TTY buffer helpers like ttyinsertflipstring concurrently. This may lead to crashes when ECHOing is enabled and concurrect writers call ptywrite in the meantime. In that case the two writers: the ECHOing from a workqueue and ptywrite from the process race and can overflow the corresponding TTY buffer.

An unprivileged local user could use this flaw to crash the system or, potentially, escalate their privileges on the system.

References: http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q2/243

Angelo Prado, Neal Harris and Yoel Gluck reported [1],[2] that SSL/TLS attacks are still viable via a "BREACH" (Browser Reconnaissance & Exfiltration via Adaptive Compression of Hypertext) attack, which they describe as:

While CRIME was mitigated by disabling TLS/SPDY compression (and by modifying gzip to allow for explicit separation of compression contexts in SPDY), BREACH attacks HTTP responses. These are compressed using the common HTTP compression, which is much more common than TLS-level compression. This allows essentially the same attack demonstrated by Duong and Rizzo, but without relying on TLS-level compression (as they anticipated).

BREACH is a category of vulnerabilities and not a specific instance affecting a specific piece of software. To be vulnerable, a web application must:

Be served from a server that uses HTTP-level compression Reflect user-input in HTTP response bodies Reflect a secret (such as a CSRF token) in HTTP response bodies

It is important to note that the attack is agnostic to the version of TLS/SSL, and does not require TLS-layer compression. Additionally, the attack works against any cipher suite. Against a stream cipher, the attack is simpler; the difference in sizes across response bodies is much more granular in this case. If a block cipher is used, additional work must be done to align the output to the cipher text blocks.

CERT has an entry describing the flaw as well [3]. Currently no CVE is assigned as MITRE is attempting to determine whether one CVE will suffice, or whether it will require multiple CVEs (one per affected product). [4]

Mitigations are noted by the researchers as follows

1. Disable HTTP compression. 2. Separate the secrets from the user input. 3. Randomize the secrets in each client request. 4. Mask secrets (effectively randomizing by XORing with a random secret per request). 5. Protect web pages from CSRF attacks. 6. Obfuscate the length of web responses by adding random amounts of arbitrary bytes.

[1] http://breachattack.com/ [2] http://breachattack.com/resources/BREACH%20-%20SSL,%20gone%20in%2030%20seconds.pdf [3] http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/987798 [4] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/08/07/1