| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| IBM Data Risk Manager (iDNA) 2.0.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 184927. |
| IBM Data Risk Manager (iDNA) 2.0.6 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 184925. |
| IBM Security Guardium Insights 2.0.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 184812. |
| IBM Security Guardium Insights 2.0.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 184819. |
| IBM Security Guardium Insights 2.0.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 184800. |
| IBM API Connect V2018.4.1.0 through 2018.4.1.11 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 181324. |
| IBM Spectrum Scale 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.4.4 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 179158. |
| IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 179001. |
| IBM Spectrum Scale 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.4.4 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 178424. |
| IBM Spectrum Scale 5.0.0.0 through 5.0.4.4 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 178423. |
| IBM Security Guardium Big Data Intelligence 1.0 (SonarG) uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 175560. |
| IBM Security Guardium 11.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 174852. |
| IBM Security Guardium 10.5, 10.6, and 11.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 174803. |
| IBM Security Guardium Insights 2.0.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 174683. |
| IBM Security Guardium Insights 2.0.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 174405. |
| GeoVision Door Access Control device family employs shared cryptographic private keys for SSH and HTTPS. Attackers may conduct MITM attack with the derived keys and plaintext recover of encrypted messages. |
| Authenticated and encrypted payload MMEs can be forged and remotely sent to any HPAV2 system using a jailbreak key recoverable from code. |
| An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.16.11. The mixed IPID assignment method with the hash-based IPID assignment policy allows an off-path attacker to inject data into a victim's TCP session or terminate that session. |
| Amazon AWS CloudFront TLSv1.2_2019 allows TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 and TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384, which some entities consider to be weak ciphers. |
| In RELIC before 2020-08-01, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature forgery can occur because certain checks of the padding (and of the first two bytes) are inadequate. NOTE: this requires that a low public exponent (such as 3) is being used. The product, by default, does not generate RSA keys with such a low number. |
