diff options
-rw-r--r-- | security/vuxml/vuln.xml | 57 |
1 files changed, 57 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/security/vuxml/vuln.xml b/security/vuxml/vuln.xml index 3ea3c1cef45f..a2088a3bbb2a 100644 --- a/security/vuxml/vuln.xml +++ b/security/vuxml/vuln.xml @@ -58,6 +58,63 @@ Notes: * Do not forget port variants (linux-f10-libxml2, libxml2, etc.) --> <vuxml xmlns="http://www.vuxml.org/apps/vuxml-1"> + <vuln vid="9f7a0f39-ddc0-11e7-b5af-a4badb2f4699"> + <topic>FreeBSD -- OpenSSL multiple vulnerabilities</topic> + <affects> + <package> + <name>FreeBSD</name> + <range><ge>11.1</ge><lt>11.1_6</lt></range> + <range><ge>10.4</ge><lt>10.4_5</lt></range> + <range><ge>10.3</ge><lt>10.3_26</lt></range> + </package> + </affects> + <description> + <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <h1>Problem Description:</h1> + <p>Invoking SSL_read()/SSL_write() while in an error state + causes data to be passed without being decrypted/encrypted + directly from the SSL/TLS record layer.</p> + <p>In order to exploit this issue an application bug would + have to be present that resulted in a call to + SSL_read()/SSL_write() being issued after having already + received a fatal error. [CVE-2017-3737]</p> + <p>There is an overflow bug in the x86_64 Montgomery + multiplication procedure used in exponentiation with 1024-bit + moduli. This only affects processors that support the AVX2 + but not ADX extensions like Intel Haswell (4th generation). + [CVE-2017-3738] This bug only affects FreeBSD 11.x.</p> + <h1>Impact:</h1> + <p>Applications with incorrect error handling may inappropriately + pass unencrypted data. [CVE-2017-3737]</p> + <p>Mishandling of carry propagation will produce incorrect + output, and make it easier for a remote attacker to obtain + sensitive private-key information. No EC algorithms are + affected and analysis suggests that attacks against RSA and + DSA as a result of this defect would be very difficult to + perform and are not believed likely.</p> + <p>Attacks against DH1024 are considered just feasible + (although very difficult) because most of the work necessary + to deduce information about a private key may be performed + offline. The amount of resources required for such an attack + would be very significant and likely only accessible to a + limited number of attackers. However, for an attack on TLS + to be meaningful, the server would have to share the DH1024 + private key among multiple clients, which is no longer an + option since CVE-2016-0701. [CVE-2017-3738]</p> + </body> + </description> + <references> + <cvename>CVE-2016-0701</cvename> + <cvename>CVE-2017-3737</cvename> + <cvename>CVE-2017-3738</cvename> + <freebsdsa>SA-17:12.openssl</freebsdsa> + </references> + <dates> + <discovery>2017-12-09</discovery> + <entry>2017-12-10</entry> + </dates> + </vuln> + <vuln vid="4b228e69-22e1-4019-afd0-8aa716d0ec0b"> <topic>wireshark -- multiple security issues</topic> <affects> |