Cryptographic Issue when using a static initialization vector for AES-GCM key wrapping, which requires a unique value for each call to ensure security.
💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
共收录 12 条相关安全情报。
← 返回所有主题Cryptographic Issue when using a static initialization vector for AES-GCM key wrapping, which requires a unique value for each call to ensure security.
💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cryptographic Issue when using a static initialization vector for AES-GCM key wrapping, which requires a unique value for each call to ensure security.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
We found a chain of combining multiple weaknesses in the product that could allow an attacker to become any user in the backend and access any data: * The payment integration plugins Stripe (included in the core system), pretix-mollie, pretix-oppwa, pretix-bitpay, pretix-payone, pretix-secuconnect, pretix-sofort, and pretix-saferpay contain a code path that is intended for the transp
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-22 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the PasskeyEncipherImage method due to AES-CTR nonce reuse. Attackers can exploit nonce reuse in the cipher implementation to recover plaintext information from encrypted images.
💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-22 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the PasskeyEncipherImage method due to AES-CTR nonce reuse. Attackers can exploit nonce reuse in the cipher implementation to recover plaintext information from encrypted images.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
AES-GCM encryption/decryption with extremely large cumulative single message sizes (>64 GiB) were not properly rejected by the streaming APIs, allowing counter wrap, keystream reuse, and consequent plaintext recovery.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Crypt::DSA versions before 1.21 for Perl reused the nonce across signatures, leading to private-key recovery. Crypt::DSA::sign caches the per-signature nonce material in the Key object without ever clearing it. The first sign() on a Key object picks a nonce, and every later sign() on that same object reuses it, producing an identical "r". Keys used to sign more than once with an affected versio
💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Crypt::DSA versions before 1.21 for Perl reused the nonce across signatures, leading to private-key recovery. Crypt::DSA::sign caches the per-signature nonce material in the Key object without ever clearing it. The first sign() on a Key object picks a nonce, and every later sign() on that same object reuses it, producing an identical "r". Keys used to sign more than once with an affected versio
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Discuz! X5.0 releases 20260320 through 20260501 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to gain unauthorized access to database backup and restore functionality by exploiting a shared cryptographic key between UCenter integration and the database backup API exposed by dbbak.php. Attackers can inject a crafted payload through the username paramet
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The PasskeyEncipherImage method is vulnerable to information disclosure via AES-CTR nonce reuse. ImageMagick has update the documentation on its website to make it more clear that this is happening: https://imagemagick.org/cipher/
💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Astro is a web framework. Astro versions prior to 6.1.10 used AES-GCM encryption to protect the confidentiality and integrity of server island props and slots parameters, but did not bind the ciphertext to its intended component or parameter type. An attacker could replay one component's encrypted props (p) value as another component's slots (s) value, or vice versa. Since slots contain raw unesca
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
### Impact Astro versions prior to 6.1.10 used AES-GCM encryption to protect the confidentiality and integrity of server island props and slots parameters, but did not bind the ciphertext to its intended component or parameter type. An attacker could replay one component's encrypted props (`p`) value as another component's slots (`s`) value, or vice versa. Since slots contain raw unescaped HTML
💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估