CWE-311
DiscouragedMissing Encryption of Sensitive Data
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
778 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-WFFF-JR55-CV4R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-30 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-30 00:00Zyxel CloudCNM SecuManager 3.1.0 and 3.1.1 has an unauthenticated zy_install_user_key API.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15343"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-29T03:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Zyxel CloudCNM SecuManager 3.1.0 and 3.1.1 has an unauthenticated zy_install_user_key API.",
"id": "GHSA-wfff-jr55-cv4r",
"modified": "2022-09-30T00:00:32Z",
"published": "2022-09-30T00:00:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15343"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pierrekim.github.io/blog/2020-03-09-zyxel-secumanager-0day-vulnerabilities.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zyxel.com/support/vulnerabilities-of-CloudCNM-SecuManager.shtml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WFWQ-HHCQ-H62R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:36 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:36TLS-RSA cipher suites are not disabled in HCL BigFix Inventory up to v10.0.2. If TLS 2.0 and secure ciphers are not enabled then an attacker can passively record traffic and later decrypt it.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-14254"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-16T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "TLS-RSA cipher suites are not disabled in HCL BigFix Inventory up to v10.0.2. If TLS 2.0 and secure ciphers are not enabled then an attacker can passively record traffic and later decrypt it.",
"id": "GHSA-wfwq-hhcq-h62r",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:36:38Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:36:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-14254"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hcltechsw.com/csm?id=kb_article\u0026sysparm_article=KB0085733"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-WG5R-C793-W5W2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-02-18 23:44 – Updated: 2021-01-08 01:56Affected versions of mystem-wrapper insecurely download an executable over an unencrypted HTTP connection.
In scenarios where an attacker has a privileged network position, it is possible to intercept the response and replace the executable with a malicious one, resulting in code execution on the system running mystem-wrapper.
Recommendation
No patch is currently available for this vulnerability.
The best mitigation is currently to avoid using this package, using a different package if available.
Alternatively, the risk of exploitation can be reduced by ensuring that this package is not installed while connected to a public network. If the package is installed on a private network, the only people who can exploit this vulnerability are those who have compromised your network or those who have privileged access to your ISP, such as Nation State Actors or Rogue ISP Employees.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "mystem-wrapper"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.2.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-10671"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-06-16T22:00:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Affected versions of `mystem-wrapper` insecurely download an executable over an unencrypted HTTP connection. \n\nIn scenarios where an attacker has a privileged network position, it is possible to intercept the response and replace the executable with a malicious one, resulting in code execution on the system running `mystem-wrapper`.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nNo patch is currently available for this vulnerability.\n\nThe best mitigation is currently to avoid using this package, using a different package if available. \n\nAlternatively, the risk of exploitation can be reduced by ensuring that this package is not installed while connected to a public network. If the package is installed on a private network, the only people who can exploit this vulnerability are those who have compromised your network or those who have privileged access to your ISP, such as Nation State Actors or Rogue ISP Employees.",
"id": "GHSA-wg5r-c793-w5w2",
"modified": "2021-01-08T01:56:50Z",
"published": "2019-02-18T23:44:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10671"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-wg5r-c793-w5w2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/280"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Downloads Resources over HTTP in mystem-wrapper"
}
GHSA-WP8R-CVVG-9JF3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:47 – Updated: 2023-02-28 21:30An issue was discovered on Moxa AWK-3121 1.14 devices. The device provides a Wi-Fi connection that is open and does not use any encryption mechanism by default. An administrator who uses the open wireless connection to set up the device can allow an attacker to sniff the traffic passing between the user's computer and the device. This can allow an attacker to steal the credentials passing over the HTTP connection as well as TELNET traffic. Also an attacker can MITM the response and infect a user's computer very easily as well.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-10694"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-07T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on Moxa AWK-3121 1.14 devices. The device provides a Wi-Fi connection that is open and does not use any encryption mechanism by default. An administrator who uses the open wireless connection to set up the device can allow an attacker to sniff the traffic passing between the user\u0027s computer and the device. This can allow an attacker to steal the credentials passing over the HTTP connection as well as TELNET traffic. Also an attacker can MITM the response and infect a user\u0027s computer very easily as well.",
"id": "GHSA-wp8r-cvvg-9jf3",
"modified": "2023-02-28T21:30:18Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:47:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-10694"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/samuelhuntley/Moxa_AWK_1121/blob/master/Moxa_AWK_1121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Jun/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/153223/Moxa-AWK-3121-1.14-Information-Disclosure-Command-Execution.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-WPGC-5CR5-H9GG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-11 15:30 – Updated: 2022-12-13 17:56phpMyFAQ is contains Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute in versions prior to 3.1.9.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "thorsten/phpmyfaq"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4409"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311",
"CWE-319",
"CWE-614"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-12T22:06:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-11T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "phpMyFAQ is contains Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without \u0027Secure\u0027 Attribute in versions prior to 3.1.9.",
"id": "GHSA-wpgc-5cr5-h9gg",
"modified": "2022-12-13T17:56:45Z",
"published": "2022-12-11T15:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4409"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpMyFAQ/commit/c16cc2bbe2687f75aa1204b804483091fae43cba"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpmyfaq/commit/8b47f38"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/thorsten/phpmyfaq"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/5915ed4c-5fe2-42e7-8fac-5dd0d032727c"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "phpMyFAQ has insecure HTTP cookies"
}
GHSA-WPHQ-J78P-FHGP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:27 – Updated: 2022-12-21 00:21Parameterized Remote Trigger Plugin 3.1.3 and earlier stores a secret unencrypted in its global configuration file org.jenkinsci.plugins.ParameterizedRemoteTrigger.RemoteBuildConfiguration.xml on the Jenkins controller as part of its configuration. This secret can be viewed by attackers with access to the Jenkins controller file system.
Parameterized Remote Trigger Plugin 3.1.4 stores the secret encrypted once its configuration is saved again.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.1.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:Parameterized-Remote-Trigger"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-2239"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-256",
"CWE-311"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-21T00:21:31Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-09-01T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Parameterized Remote Trigger Plugin 3.1.3 and earlier stores a secret unencrypted in its global configuration file `org.jenkinsci.plugins.ParameterizedRemoteTrigger.RemoteBuildConfiguration.xml` on the Jenkins controller as part of its configuration. This secret can be viewed by attackers with access to the Jenkins controller file system.\n\nParameterized Remote Trigger Plugin 3.1.4 stores the secret encrypted once its configuration is saved again.",
"id": "GHSA-wphq-j78p-fhgp",
"modified": "2022-12-21T00:21:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:27:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-2239"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/parameterized-remote-trigger-plugin/commit/2902ef5ea6eb077f43fd25c880e4920faea4e828"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/parameterized-remote-trigger-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2020-09-01/#SECURITY-1625"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/09/01/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Secret stored in plain text by Jenkins Parameterized Remote Trigger Plugin"
}
GHSA-WPWQ-4J6V-78M3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-19 14:17 – Updated: 2026-06-19 14:17Impact
The built-in cURL handlers (GuzzleHttp\Handler\CurlHandler and GuzzleHttp\Handler\CurlMultiHandler, used by default whenever the PHP cURL extension is available) accept an https:// proxy — a proxy reached over a TLS-encrypted connection — through the proxy request option, client-level proxy defaults, or proxy environment variables such as http_proxy, https_proxy, HTTPS_PROXY, all_proxy, and ALL_PROXY.
When the installed libcurl does not support HTTPS proxies, behavior depends on the libcurl version/build:
- libcurl older than 7.50.2 silently treats an
https://proxy as a plaintexthttp://proxy. The TLS connection to the proxy is never established, and the proxy leg is cleartext with no error or warning. - libcurl 7.50.2 through 7.51.x rejects the unsupported proxy scheme at connect time, so no cleartext exposure occurs, but the failure is late and opaque.
- libcurl 7.52.0 or newer builds without HTTPS-proxy support also fail at connect time rather than downgrading.
The security-relevant case is the silent downgrade on libcurl older than 7.50.2. An application is affected when it sends requests through one of the built-in cURL handlers, configures an https:// proxy expecting the proxy connection itself to be encrypted, and runs with libcurl older than 7.50.2.
In that configuration, traffic expected to be protected by TLS on the hop to the proxy is transmitted in cleartext. Proxy authentication credentials (the Proxy-Authorization header, proxy userinfo in the proxy URL, or CURLOPT_PROXYUSERPWD) are sent without encryption, and the CONNECT target host and port for tunneled HTTPS requests are exposed. For plain HTTP requests, request headers and bodies are also exposed on the proxy leg. End-to-end HTTPS requests tunneled through the proxy remain protected by their inner TLS session; the exposure is limited to the proxy negotiation and proxy credentials.
Applications that do not configure an https:// proxy are not affected. Installations running libcurl 7.52.0 or newer built with HTTPS-proxy support are not affected because HTTPS proxies work as intended. Installations running libcurl 7.50.2 through 7.51.x, or libcurl 7.52.0 or newer built without HTTPS-proxy support, are not exposed to the silent cleartext downgrade, but Guzzle now rejects those unsupported configurations up front as well. The built-in stream handler is not affected; the issue is specific to the cURL handlers' proxy handling. Low-level cURL options under the curl request option, such as CURLOPT_PROXY or CURLOPT_PROXYTYPE, are advanced custom configuration and remain the caller's responsibility.
Patches
The issue is patched in 7.12.1 and later. Starting in that release, the built-in cURL handlers detect whether the installed libcurl supports HTTPS proxies — requiring both libcurl 7.52.0 or newer and the CURL_VERSION_HTTPS_PROXY feature bit — and reject a request configured through Guzzle's first-class proxy handling with an https:// proxy up front by throwing a GuzzleHttp\Exception\RequestException. No request bytes reach the network when the proxy cannot be used securely. Versions before 7.12.1 are affected by the silent downgrade when run against libcurl older than 7.50.2.
Workarounds
If you cannot upgrade immediately, do not configure an https:// proxy on an installation whose libcurl lacks HTTPS-proxy support, and verify the capability in application code before using one. Remember to check proxy environment variables as well as any explicit proxy option:
$curl = \curl_version();
$httpsProxyBit = \defined('CURL_VERSION_HTTPS_PROXY') ? \CURL_VERSION_HTTPS_PROXY : (1 << 21);
if (\version_compare($curl['version'], '7.52.0', '<') || 0 === ($curl['features'] & $httpsProxyBit)) {
throw new \RuntimeException('Installed libcurl does not support HTTPS proxies.');
}
Upgrading the system libcurl to 7.52.0 or newer built with HTTPS-proxy support also resolves the underlying unsupported-proxy behavior.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "guzzlehttp/guzzle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.12.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-55568"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311",
"CWE-319",
"CWE-636"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-19T14:17:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nThe built-in cURL handlers (`GuzzleHttp\\Handler\\CurlHandler` and `GuzzleHttp\\Handler\\CurlMultiHandler`, used by default whenever the PHP cURL extension is available) accept an `https://` proxy \u2014 a proxy reached over a TLS-encrypted connection \u2014 through the `proxy` request option, client-level `proxy` defaults, or proxy environment variables such as `http_proxy`, `https_proxy`, `HTTPS_PROXY`, `all_proxy`, and `ALL_PROXY`.\n\nWhen the installed libcurl does not support HTTPS proxies, behavior depends on the libcurl version/build:\n\n- libcurl older than 7.50.2 silently treats an `https://` proxy as a plaintext `http://` proxy. The TLS connection to the proxy is never established, and the proxy leg is cleartext with no error or warning.\n- libcurl 7.50.2 through 7.51.x rejects the unsupported proxy scheme at connect time, so no cleartext exposure occurs, but the failure is late and opaque.\n- libcurl 7.52.0 or newer builds without HTTPS-proxy support also fail at connect time rather than downgrading.\n\nThe security-relevant case is the silent downgrade on libcurl older than 7.50.2. An application is affected when it sends requests through one of the built-in cURL handlers, configures an `https://` proxy expecting the proxy connection itself to be encrypted, and runs with libcurl older than 7.50.2.\n\nIn that configuration, traffic expected to be protected by TLS on the hop to the proxy is transmitted in cleartext. Proxy authentication credentials (the `Proxy-Authorization` header, proxy userinfo in the proxy URL, or `CURLOPT_PROXYUSERPWD`) are sent without encryption, and the `CONNECT` target host and port for tunneled HTTPS requests are exposed. For plain HTTP requests, request headers and bodies are also exposed on the proxy leg. End-to-end HTTPS requests tunneled through the proxy remain protected by their inner TLS session; the exposure is limited to the proxy negotiation and proxy credentials.\n\nApplications that do not configure an `https://` proxy are not affected. Installations running libcurl 7.52.0 or newer built with HTTPS-proxy support are not affected because HTTPS proxies work as intended. Installations running libcurl 7.50.2 through 7.51.x, or libcurl 7.52.0 or newer built without HTTPS-proxy support, are not exposed to the silent cleartext downgrade, but Guzzle now rejects those unsupported configurations up front as well. The built-in stream handler is not affected; the issue is specific to the cURL handlers\u0027 proxy handling. Low-level cURL options under the `curl` request option, such as `CURLOPT_PROXY` or `CURLOPT_PROXYTYPE`, are advanced custom configuration and remain the caller\u0027s responsibility.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue is patched in `7.12.1` and later. Starting in that release, the built-in cURL handlers detect whether the installed libcurl supports HTTPS proxies \u2014 requiring both libcurl 7.52.0 or newer and the `CURL_VERSION_HTTPS_PROXY` feature bit \u2014 and reject a request configured through Guzzle\u0027s first-class proxy handling with an `https://` proxy up front by throwing a `GuzzleHttp\\Exception\\RequestException`. No request bytes reach the network when the proxy cannot be used securely. Versions before `7.12.1` are affected by the silent downgrade when run against libcurl older than 7.50.2.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf you cannot upgrade immediately, do not configure an `https://` proxy on an installation whose libcurl lacks HTTPS-proxy support, and verify the capability in application code before using one. Remember to check proxy environment variables as well as any explicit `proxy` option:\n\n```php\n$curl = \\curl_version();\n$httpsProxyBit = \\defined(\u0027CURL_VERSION_HTTPS_PROXY\u0027) ? \\CURL_VERSION_HTTPS_PROXY : (1 \u003c\u003c 21);\n\nif (\\version_compare($curl[\u0027version\u0027], \u00277.52.0\u0027, \u0027\u003c\u0027) || 0 === ($curl[\u0027features\u0027] \u0026 $httpsProxyBit)) {\n throw new \\RuntimeException(\u0027Installed libcurl does not support HTTPS proxies.\u0027);\n}\n```\n\nUpgrading the system libcurl to 7.52.0 or newer built with HTTPS-proxy support also resolves the underlying unsupported-proxy behavior.",
"id": "GHSA-wpwq-4j6v-78m3",
"modified": "2026-06-19T14:17:59Z",
"published": "2026-06-19T14:17:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle/security/advisories/GHSA-wpwq-4j6v-78m3"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "guzzlehttp/guzzle: Silent HTTPS-Proxy Downgrade to Cleartext"
}
GHSA-WQ7Q-7VFH-2X3H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-02-18 23:54 – Updated: 2023-09-07 18:55Affected versions of install-nw insecurely download an executable over an unencrypted HTTP connection.
In scenarios where an attacker has a privileged network position, it is possible to intercept the response and replace the executable with a malicious one, resulting in code execution on the system running install-nw.
Recommendation
Update to version 1.1.5 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "install-nw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-10566"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-06-16T22:00:58Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Affected versions of `install-nw` insecurely download an executable over an unencrypted HTTP connection. \n\nIn scenarios where an attacker has a privileged network position, it is possible to intercept the response and replace the executable with a malicious one, resulting in code execution on the system running `install-nw`.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nUpdate to version 1.1.5 or later.",
"id": "GHSA-wq7q-7vfh-2x3h",
"modified": "2023-09-07T18:55:53Z",
"published": "2019-02-18T23:54:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10566"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-wq7q-7vfh-2x3h"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/204"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "install-nw downloads Resources over HTTP"
}
GHSA-WQFC-CR59-H64P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-07-31 04:22 – Updated: 2021-08-17 19:40Yarn before 1.17.3 is vulnerable to Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data due to HTTP URLs in lockfile causing unencrypted authentication data to be sent over the network.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "yarn"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.17.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-5448"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311",
"CWE-319"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2019-07-31T03:41:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-30T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Yarn before 1.17.3 is vulnerable to Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data due to HTTP URLs in lockfile causing unencrypted authentication data to be sent over the network.",
"id": "GHSA-wqfc-cr59-h64p",
"modified": "2021-08-17T19:40:44Z",
"published": "2019-07-31T04:22:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5448"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/640904"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ChALkeR/notes/blob/master/Yarn-vuln.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://yarnpkg.com/blog/2019/07/12/recommended-security-update"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data in yarn"
}
GHSA-WQPG-FCG8-GQ9P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-03 00:01 – Updated: 2022-04-10 00:01Philips Vue PACS versions 12.2.x.x and prior uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-33020"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-311",
"CWE-324",
"CWE-672"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-01T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Philips Vue PACS versions 12.2.x.x and prior uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.",
"id": "GHSA-wqpg-fcg8-gq9p",
"modified": "2022-04-10T00:01:05Z",
"published": "2022-04-03T00:01:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33020"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsma-21-187-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.philips.com/productsecurity"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Clearly specify which data or resources are valuable enough that they should be protected by encryption. Require that any transmission or storage of this data/resource should use well-vetted encryption algorithms.
Mitigation
- Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to:
- Identify the separate needs and contexts for encryption:
- Using threat modeling or other techniques, assume that data can be compromised through a separate vulnerability or weakness, and determine where encryption will be most effective. Ensure that data that should be private is not being inadvertently exposed using weaknesses such as insecure permissions (CWE-732). [REF-7]
- {'xhtml:li': ['Encryption that is needed to store or transmit private data of the users of the system', 'Encryption that is needed to protect the system itself from unauthorized disclosure or tampering']}
- {'xhtml:li': ['One-way (i.e., only the user or recipient needs to have the key). This can be achieved using public key cryptography, or other techniques in which the encrypting party (i.e., the product) does not need to have access to a private key.', 'Two-way (i.e., the encryption can be automatically performed on behalf of a user, but the key must be available so that the plaintext can be automatically recoverable by that user). This requires storage of the private key in a format that is recoverable only by the user (or perhaps by the operating system) in a way that cannot be recovered by others.']}
Mitigation MIT-24
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
- For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-2 certification.
- Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak.
- Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
Mitigation MIT-46
Strategy: Separation of Privilege
- Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
- Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
Mitigation MIT-25
When using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
Mitigation MIT-33
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
CAPEC-157: Sniffing Attacks
In this attack pattern, the adversary intercepts information transmitted between two third parties. The adversary must be able to observe, read, and/or hear the communication traffic, but not necessarily block the communication or change its content. Any transmission medium can theoretically be sniffed if the adversary can examine the contents between the sender and recipient. Sniffing Attacks are similar to Adversary-In-The-Middle attacks (CAPEC-94), but are entirely passive. AiTM attacks are predominantly active and often alter the content of the communications themselves.
CAPEC-158: Sniffing Network Traffic
In this attack pattern, the adversary monitors network traffic between nodes of a public or multicast network in an attempt to capture sensitive information at the protocol level. Network sniffing applications can reveal TCP/IP, DNS, Ethernet, and other low-level network communication information. The adversary takes a passive role in this attack pattern and simply observes and analyzes the traffic. The adversary may precipitate or indirectly influence the content of the observed transaction, but is never the intended recipient of the target information.
CAPEC-204: Lifting Sensitive Data Embedded in Cache
An adversary examines a target application's cache, or a browser cache, for sensitive information. Many applications that communicate with remote entities or which perform intensive calculations utilize caches to improve efficiency. However, if the application computes or receives sensitive information and the cache is not appropriately protected, an attacker can browse the cache and retrieve this information. This can result in the disclosure of sensitive information.
CAPEC-31: Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. There are several different forms of this attack. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the adversary to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the adversary before it is sent back to the server. Here the adversary seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information.
CAPEC-37: Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data
An attacker examines a target system to find sensitive data that has been embedded within it. This information can reveal confidential contents, such as account numbers or individual keys/credentials that can be used as an intermediate step in a larger attack.
CAPEC-383: Harvesting Information via API Event Monitoring
An adversary hosts an event within an application framework and then monitors the data exchanged during the course of the event for the purpose of harvesting any important data leaked during the transactions. One example could be harvesting lists of usernames or userIDs for the purpose of sending spam messages to those users. One example of this type of attack involves the adversary creating an event within the sub-application. Assume the adversary hosts a "virtual sale" of rare items. As other users enter the event, the attacker records via AiTM (CAPEC-94) proxy the user_ids and usernames of everyone who attends. The adversary would then be able to spam those users within the application using an automated script.
CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.
CAPEC-477: Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content
An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
CAPEC-609: Cellular Traffic Intercept
Cellular traffic for voice and data from mobile devices and retransmission devices can be intercepted via numerous methods. Malicious actors can deploy their own cellular tower equipment and intercept cellular traffic surreptitiously. Additionally, government agencies of adversaries and malicious actors can intercept cellular traffic via the telecommunications backbone over which mobile traffic is transmitted.
CAPEC-65: Sniff Application Code
An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.