GHSA-CQ23-CXPR-F49X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-21 01:50 – Updated: 2022-04-21 01:50
VLAI?
Details
It was found that various OpenID Providers (OPs) had TLS Server Certificates that used weak keys, as a result of the Debian Predictable Random Number Generator (CVE-2008-0166). In combination with the DNS Cache Poisoning issue (CVE-2008-1447) and the fact that almost all SSL/TLS implementations do not consult CRLs (currently an untracked issue), this means that it is impossible to rely on these OPs.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-3280"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-338"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-21T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "It was found that various OpenID Providers (OPs) had TLS Server Certificates that used weak keys, as a result of the Debian Predictable Random Number Generator (CVE-2008-0166). In combination with the DNS Cache Poisoning issue (CVE-2008-1447) and the fact that almost all SSL/TLS implementations do not consult CRLs (currently an untracked issue), this means that it is impossible to rely on these OPs.",
"id": "GHSA-cq23-cxpr-f49x",
"modified": "2022-04-21T01:50:57Z",
"published": "2022-04-21T01:50:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-3280"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/5720"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-security/2008-August/000942.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…