CPE Details
Alerte pour un CPE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CPE.
CPE Name: cpe:2.3:a:nodejs:node.js:7.1.0:*:*:*:-:*:*:*
Informations
Vendor
nodejsProduct
node.jsVersion
7.1.0Software Edition
-Related CVE
| CVE ID | Published | Description | Score | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Node.js < 12.22.9, < 14.18.3, < 16.13.2, and < 17.3.1 did not handle multi-value Relative Distinguished Names correctly. Attackers could craft certificate subjects containing a single-value Relative Distinguished Name that would be interpreted as a multi-value Relative Distinguished Name, for example, in order to inject a Common Name that would allow bypassing the certificate subject verification.Affected versions of Node.js that do not accept multi-value Relative Distinguished Names and are thus not vulnerable to such attacks themselves. However, third-party code that uses node's ambiguous presentation of certificate subjects may be vulnerable. | 5.3 |
MEDIUM |
||
| 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. | 5.3 |
MEDIUM |
||
| 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. | 7.4 |
HIGH |
||
| napi_get_value_string_*() allows various kinds of memory corruption in node < 10.21.0, 12.18.0, and < 14.4.0. | 8.1 |
HIGH |
||
| Node.js v4.0 through v4.8.3, all versions of v5.x, v6.0 through v6.11.0, v7.0 through v7.10.0, and v8.0 through v8.1.3 was susceptible to hash flooding remote DoS attacks as the HashTable seed was constant across a given released version of Node.js. This was a result of building with V8 snapshots enabled by default which caused the initially randomized seed to be overwritten on startup. | 7.5 |
HIGH |
||
| The c-ares function `ares_parse_naptr_reply()`, which is used for parsing NAPTR responses, could be triggered to read memory outside of the given input buffer if the passed in DNS response packet was crafted in a particular way. | 7.5 |
HIGH |
||
| inftrees.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging improper pointer arithmetic. | 8.8 |
HIGH |
||
| inffast.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging improper pointer arithmetic. | 9.8 |
CRITICAL |
||
| The inflateMark function in inflate.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact via vectors involving left shifts of negative integers. | 8.8 |
HIGH |
||
| The crc32_big function in crc32.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact via vectors involving big-endian CRC calculation. | 9.8 |
CRITICAL |
||
| There is a carry propagating bug in the Broadwell-specific Montgomery multiplication procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0c that handles input lengths divisible by, but longer than 256 bits. Analysis suggests that attacks against RSA, DSA and DH private keys are impossible. This is because the subroutine in question is not used in operations with the private key itself and an input of the attacker's direct choice. Otherwise the bug can manifest itself as transient authentication and key negotiation failures or reproducible erroneous outcome of public-key operations with specially crafted input. Among EC algorithms only Brainpool P-512 curves are affected and one presumably can attack ECDH key negotiation. Impact was not analyzed in detail, because pre-requisites for attack are considered unlikely. Namely multiple clients have to choose the curve in question and the server has to share the private key among them, neither of which is default behaviour. Even then only clients that chose the curve will be affected. | 5.9 |
MEDIUM |
||
| If an SSL/TLS server or client is running on a 32-bit host, and a specific cipher is being used, then a truncated packet can cause that server or client to perform an out-of-bounds read, usually resulting in a crash. For OpenSSL 1.1.0, the crash can be triggered when using CHACHA20/POLY1305; users should upgrade to 1.1.0d. For Openssl 1.0.2, the crash can be triggered when using RC4-MD5; users who have not disabled that algorithm should update to 1.0.2k. | 7.5 |
HIGH |
||
| There is a carry propagating bug in the x86_64 Montgomery squaring procedure in OpenSSL 1.0.2 before 1.0.2k and 1.1.0 before 1.1.0d. No EC algorithms are affected. 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. Attacks against DH 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. An attacker would additionally need online access to an unpatched system using the target private key in a scenario with persistent DH parameters and a private key that is shared between multiple clients. For example this can occur by default in OpenSSL DHE based SSL/TLS ciphersuites. Note: This issue is very similar to CVE-2015-3193 but must be treated as a separate problem. | 5.9 |
MEDIUM |
2024©
tesweb SA
