ghsa-79cx-xh5h-4vrc
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-01 02:20
Modified
2022-05-01 02:20
Details
Multiple buffer overflows in multiple unspecified implementations of Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) have multiple unspecified attack vectors and impacts related to denial of service, as demonstrated by the PROTOS ISAKMP Test Suite for IKEv1. NOTE: due to the lack of information in the original sources, it is likely that this candidate will be REJECTed once it is known which implementations are actually vulnerable.
{ affected: [], aliases: [ "CVE-2005-3668", ], database_specific: { cwe_ids: [], github_reviewed: false, github_reviewed_at: null, nvd_published_at: "2005-11-18T21:03:00Z", severity: "MODERATE", }, details: "Multiple buffer overflows in multiple unspecified implementations of Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) have multiple unspecified attack vectors and impacts related to denial of service, as demonstrated by the PROTOS ISAKMP Test Suite for IKEv1. NOTE: due to the lack of information in the original sources, it is likely that this candidate will be REJECTed once it is known which implementations are actually vulnerable.", id: "GHSA-79cx-xh5h-4vrc", modified: "2022-05-01T02:20:02Z", published: "2022-05-01T02:20:02Z", references: [ { type: "ADVISORY", url: "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2005-3668", }, { type: "WEB", url: "http://jvn.jp/niscc/NISCC-273756/index.html", }, { type: "WEB", url: "http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/protos/testing/c09/isakmp", }, { type: "WEB", url: "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/226364", }, { type: "WEB", url: "http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/br-20051114-01013.html?lang=en", }, ], schema_version: "1.4.0", severity: [], }
Log in or create an account to share your comment.
Security Advisory comment format.
This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.