CWE-295

e2guardian v5.4.x <= v5.4.3r is affected by missing SSL certificate validation in the SSL MITM engine. In standalone mode (i.e., acting as a proxy or a transparent proxy), with SSL MITM enabled, e2guardian, if built with OpenSSL v1.1.x, did not validate hostnames in certificates of the web servers that it connected to, and thus was itself vulnerable to MITM attacks.

Microsoft Defender for IoT Remote Code Execution Vulnerability This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2021-41365, CVE-2021-42310, CVE-2021-42311, CVE-2021-42313, CVE-2021-42314, CVE-2021-42315, CVE-2021-43889.

Odyssey passes to server unencrypted bytes from man-in-the-middle When Odyssey is configured to use certificate Common Name for client authentication, a man-in-the-middle attacker can inject arbitrary SQL queries when a connection is first established, despite the use of SSL certificate verification and encryption. This is similar to CVE-2021-23214 for PostgreSQL.

Odyssey passes to client unencrypted bytes from man-in-the-middle When Odyssey storage is configured to use the PostgreSQL server using ‘trust’ authentication with a ‘clientcert’ requirement or to use ‘cert’ authentication, a man-in-the-middle attacker can inject false responses to the client’s first few queries. Despite the use of SSL certificate verification and encryption, Odyssey will pass these results to client as if they originated from valid server. This is similar to CVE-2021-23222 for PostgreSQL.

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROS M2100 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS M2200 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS M969 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC20 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC30 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC40 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC41 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC8388 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RP110 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS400 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS401 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416v2 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000A (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000H (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000T (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900 (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900GP (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS910 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS910L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS910W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS920L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS920W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS930L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS930W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS940G (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS969 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2200 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2288 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2488 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG907R (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG908C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG909R (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG910C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG920P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSL910 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS i800 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS i801 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS i802 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS i803 (All versions). A new variant of the POODLE attack has left a third-party component vulnerable due to the implementation flaws of the CBC encryption mode in TLS 1.0 to 1.2. If an attacker were to exploit this, they could act as a man-in-the-middle and eavesdrop on encrypted communications.

A vulnerability has been identified in SINUMERIK Edge (All versions < V3.2). The affected software does not properly validate the server certificate when initiating a TLS connection. This could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by interfering in the communication path between the client and the intended server.