Where
AND
AND
-Infinity
0
Severity
5.9
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

A vulnerability was found in OpenSSL 1.0.2. When an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSLshutdown() twice, OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. This difference in behaviour can be detected by a remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Also the application must call SSLshutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). AEAD ciphersuites are not impacted. This issue does not impact OpenSSL 1.1.1 or 1.1.0.

Upstream bug: https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20190226.txt

Upstream Patch: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e9bbefbf0f24c57645e7ad6a5a71ae649d18ac8e

1 / 5
Source: Red Hat
First published (updated )
Severity
4.7
Infoleak
AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

A flaw was found in microprocessor execution engine sharing on SMT (e.g. Hyper-Threading) architectures. An attacker running a malicious process on the same core of the processor as the victim process, can extract certain secret information.

The reporter is able to steal an OpenSSL (<= 1.1.0h) P-384 private key from a TLS server using this new side-channel vector. It is a local attack in the sense that the malicious process must be running on the same physical core as the victim (an openSSL-powered TLS server in this case). But in general any application which branches on a secret value may be affected.

References: https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2018/q4/123

1 / 3
Source: Red Hat
First published (updated )
Severity
5.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

A flaw was found in OpenSSL versions from 1.1.0 through 1.1.0i inclusive and version 1.1.1. The OpenSSL ECDSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key.

References: https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20181029.txt

Upstream Patch: https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=56fb454d281a023b3f950d969693553d3f3ceea1 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=b1d6d55ece1c26fa2829e2b819b038d7b6d692b4

1 / 3
Source: Red Hat
First published (updated )
Severity
5.9
AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

A flaw was found in OpenSSL versions from 1.1.0 through 1.1.0i inclusive, from 1.0.2 through 1.0.2p inclusive and version 1.1.1. The OpenSSL DSA signature algorithm has been shown to be vulnerable to a timing side channel attack. An attacker could use variations in the signing algorithm to recover the private key.

Reference: https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20181030.txt

Upstream Patches: https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=43e6a58d4991a451daf4891ff05a48735df871ac https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=8abfe72e8c1de1b95f50aa0d9134803b4d00070f https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=ef11e19d1365eea2b1851e6f540a0bf365d303e7 https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/b96bebacfe814deb99fb64a3ed2296d95c573600

1 / 5
Source: Red Hat
First published (updated )
Severity
5.9
XSS
AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Pivotal Spring Framework is vulnerable to cross-site tracing, caused by a flaw in the HiddenHttpMethodFilter in Spring MVC. By persuading a victim to visit a specially-crafted Web site, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause the victim's browser to invoke a TRACE request to return sensitive header information including cookies or authentication data from third-party domains.

1 / 2
First published (updated )
Severity
6.5
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

A flaw was found in Spring Framework, versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.6, versions 4.3.x prior to 4.3.17, and older unsupported versions allows applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a regular expression, denial of service attack.

References: https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1257

1 / 3
Source: Red Hat
First published (updated )

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203