wolfEngine before 1.4.1 sources the explicit AES-CCM nonce for TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 records from the record input buffer instead of the TLS sequence number carried in the additional authenticated data. Because the record layer leaves the explicit-nonce field for the cipher to populate, the value read is constant across records, so every AES-CCM record within a connection is encrypted under an iden

wolfEngine before 1.4.1 generates the 8-byte explicit AES-GCM nonce once when the TLS write key is set and never increments it per record. As a result every TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 AES-GCM record within a connection is encrypted under an identical key and nonce pair. Reusing a GCM key and nonce discloses the keystream (the XOR of two ciphertexts equals the XOR of their plaintexts, so one known record

wolfProvider before 1.2.2 generates the 8-byte explicit AES-GCM nonce once when the TLS write key is set and never increments it per record. As a result every TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 AES-GCM record within a connection is encrypted under an identical key and nonce pair. Reusing a GCM key and nonce discloses the keystream (the XOR of two ciphertexts equals the XOR of their plaintexts, so one known reco

wolfEngine before 1.4.1 sources the explicit AES-CCM nonce for TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 records from the record input buffer instead of the TLS sequence number carried in the additional authenticated data. Because the record layer leaves the explicit-nonce field for the cipher to populate, the value read is constant across records, so every AES-CCM record within a connection is encrypted under an iden

wolfEngine before 1.4.1 generates the 8-byte explicit AES-GCM nonce once when the TLS write key is set and never increments it per record. As a result every TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 AES-GCM record within a connection is encrypted under an identical key and nonce pair. Reusing a GCM key and nonce discloses the keystream (the XOR of two ciphertexts equals the XOR of their plaintexts, so one known record

wolfProvider before 1.2.2 generates the 8-byte explicit AES-GCM nonce once when the TLS write key is set and never increments it per record. As a result every TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 AES-GCM record within a connection is encrypted under an identical key and nonce pair. Reusing a GCM key and nonce discloses the keystream (the XOR of two ciphertexts equals the XOR of their plaintexts, so one known reco

ePA 3.x Integration implements the authorization workflow and writes Medical Information Objects to Germany's electronic patient record. Prior to 1.3.0, ePA 3.x Integration leaves request_counter unchanged in app/vau/VAUProtokoll.py while constructing VAU messages. The frozen client request counter causes the server side to reuse AES-GCM nonce and key combinations across responses. A network attac

Cryptographic Issue when using a static initialization vector for AES-GCM key wrapping, which requires a unique value for each call to ensure security.

Cryptographic Issue when using a static initialization vector for AES-GCM key wrapping, which requires a unique value for each call to ensure security.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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/

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

### 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