Disabled Hostname Verification makes Brokers, Proxies vulnerable to MITM attack

TLS hostname verification cannot be enabled in the Pulsar Broker's Java Client, the Pulsar Broker's Java Admin Client, the Pulsar WebSocket Proxy's Java Client, and the Pulsar Proxy's Admin Client leaving intra-cluster connections and geo-replication connections vulnerable to man in the middle attacks, which could leak credentials, configuration data, message data, and any other data sent by these clients. The vulnerability is for both the pulsar+ssl protocol and HTTPS. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack by providing the client with a cryptographically valid certificate for an unrelated host. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Broker, Proxy, and WebSocket Proxy versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.

The Siemens SIMATIC S7-1200 2.x PLC does not properly protect the private key of the SIMATIC CONTROLLER Certification Authority certificate, which allows remote attackers to spoof the S7-1200 web server by using this key to create a forged certificate.

Improper Hostname Verification in Java Client and Proxy can expose authentication data via MITM

Delayed TLS hostname verification in the Pulsar Java Client and the Pulsar Proxy make each client vulnerable to a man in the middle attack. Connections from the Pulsar Java Client to the Pulsar Broker/Proxy and connections from the Pulsar Proxy to the Pulsar Broker are vulnerable. Authentication data is sent before verifying the server’s TLS certificate matches the hostname, which means authentication data could be exposed to an attacker. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack by providing the client with a cryptographically valid certificate for an unrelated host. Because the client sends authentication data before performing hostname verification, an attacker could gain access to the client’s authentication data. The client eventually closes the connection when it verifies the hostname and identifies the targeted hostname does not match a hostname on the certificate. Because the client eventually closes the connection, the value of the intercepted authentication data depends on the authentication method used by the client. Token based authentication and username/password authentication methods are vulnerable because the authentication data can be used to impersonate the client in a separate session. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Java Client versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.

Disabled Certificate Validation makes Broker, Proxy Admin Clients vulnerable to MITM attack

Apache Pulsar Brokers and Proxies create an internal Pulsar Admin Client that does not verify peer TLS certificates, even when tlsAllowInsecureConnection is disabled via configuration. The Pulsar Admin Client's intra-cluster and geo-replication HTTPS connections are vulnerable to man in the middle attacks, which could leak authentication data, configuration data, and any other data sent by these clients. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack. This issue affects Apache Pulsar Broker and Proxy versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0; 2.6.4 and earlier.

Velneo vClient Improper authentication

Velneo vClient on its 28.1.3 version, does not correctly check the certificate of authenticity by default. This could allow an attacker that has access to the network to perform a MITM attack in order to obtain the user´s credentials.

Dell OS10, version 10.5.3.4, contains an Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Support Assist. A remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized access to limited switch configuration data. The vulnerability could be leveraged by attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks to gain access to the Support Assist information.

Improper certificate validation in Ivanti Endpoint Manager before version 2024 SU1 or before version 2022 SU7 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to intercept limited traffic between clients and servers.

vault: insufficient certificate revocation list checking

HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise’s TLS certificate auth method did not initially load the optionally configured CRL issued by the role's CA into memory on startup, resulting in the revocation list not being checked if the CRL has not yet been retrieved. Fixed in 1.12.0, 1.11.4, 1.10.7, and 1.9.10.

bouncycastle: ECDSA improper validation of ASN.1 encoding of signature

In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier ECDSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up the signature and still have it validate, which in some cases may allow the introduction of 'invisible' data into a signed structure.

Improper Certificate Validation in SAP Cloud Connector

Due to improper validation of certificate in SAP Cloud Connector - version 2.0, attacker can impersonate the genuine servers to interact with SCC breaking the mutual authentication. Hence, the attacker can intercept the request to view/modify sensitive information. There is no impact on the availability of the system.

In Jenkins Delphix Plugin 3.0.1 through 3.1.0 (both inclusive) a global option for administrators to enable or disable SSL/TLS certificate validation for Data Control Tower (DCT) connections fails to take effect until Jenkins is restarted when switching from disabled validation to enabled validation.

In Jenkins Delphix Plugin 3.0.1, a global option for administrators to enable or disable SSL/TLS certificate validation for Data Control Tower (DCT) connections is disabled by default.

Windows Cryptographic Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Windows Cryptographic Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Apache Pulsar C++/Python OAuth Clients prior to 3.0.0 were vulnerable to an MITM attack due to Disabled Certificate Validation

The Apache Pulsar C++ Client does not verify peer TLS certificates when making HTTPS calls for the OAuth2.0 Client Credential Flow, even when tlsAllowInsecureConnection is disabled via configuration. This vulnerability allows an attacker to perform a man in the middle attack and intercept and/or modify the GET request that is sent to the ClientCredentialFlow 'issuer url'. The intercepted credentials can be used to acquire authentication data from the OAuth2.0 server to then authenticate with an Apache Pulsar cluster. An attacker can only take advantage of this vulnerability by taking control of a machine 'between' the client and the server. The attacker must then actively manipulate traffic to perform the attack. The Apache Pulsar Python Client wraps the C++ client, so it is also vulnerable in the same way. This issue affects Apache Pulsar C++ Client and Python Client versions 2.7.0 to 2.7.4; 2.8.0 to 2.8.3; 2.9.0 to 2.9.2; 2.10.0 to 2.10.1; 2.6.4 and earlier. Any users running affected versions of the C++ Client or the Python Client should rotate vulnerable OAuth2.0 credentials, including client_id and client_secret. 2.7 C++ and Python Client users should upgrade to 2.7.5 and rotate vulnerable OAuth2.0 credentials. 2.8 C++ and Python Client users should upgrade to 2.8.4 and rotate vulnerable OAuth2.0 credentials. 2.9 C++ and Python Client users should upgrade to 2.9.3 and rotate vulnerable OAuth2.0 credentials. 2.10 C++ and Python Client users should upgrade to 2.10.2 and rotate vulnerable OAuth2.0 credentials. 3.0 C++ users are unaffected and 3.0 Python Client users will be unaffected when it is released. Any users running the C++ and Python Client for 2.6 or less should upgrade to one of the above patched versions.

An improper certificate validation vulnerability in TLS certificate validation allows an attacker on the same network to intercept sensitive credentials during restore operations.

nodejs: Certificate Verification Bypass via String Injection

Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 converts SANs (Subject Alternative Names) to a string format. It uses this string to check peer certificates against hostnames when validating connections. The string format was subject to an injection vulnerability when name constraints were used within a certificate chain, allowing the bypass of these name constraints.Versions of Node.js with the fix for this escape SANs containing the problematic characters in order to prevent the injection. This behavior can be reverted through the --security-revert command-line option.

nodejs: Improper handling of URI Subject Alternative Names

Accepting arbitrary Subject Alternative Name (SAN) types, unless a PKI is specifically defined to use a particular SAN type, can result in bypassing name-constrained intermediates. Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 was accepting URI SAN types, which PKIs are often not defined to use. Additionally, when a protocol allows URI SANs, Node.js did not match the URI correctly.Versions of Node.js with the fix for this disable the URI SAN type when checking a certificate against a hostname. This behavior can be reverted through the --security-revert command-line option.

nodejs: Incomplete validation of tls rejectUnauthorized parameter

If the Node.js https API was used incorrectly and "undefined" was in passed for the "rejectUnauthorized" parameter, no error was returned and connections to servers with an expired certificate would have been accepted.

nodejs: Remotely trigger an assertion on a TLS server with a malformed certificate string

Improper Certificate Validation in Node.js 10, 12, and 13 causes the process to abort when sending a crafted X.509 certificate

In UWB Google, there is a possible way for a malicious app to masquerade as system app com.android.uwb.resources due to improperly used crypto. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.