| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A heap buffer overflow could occur in the DTLS 1.3 ACK serialization path before the connecting peer is authenticated. The buffer overflow was due to an integer truncation when computing the length of the ACK record-number list, causing an undersized buffer to be allocated and then overrun. This affects builds using DTLS 1.3 and wolfSSL version 5.9.0 and earlier. A fix was added to the 5.9.1 release. |
| Integer underflow in wc_PKCS7_DecryptOri when handling crafted Other Recipient Info, leading to incorrect length handling during decryption. |
| Certificate policy and RFC 8446 compliance concerns regarding the continued acceptance of SHA-1/MD5 in certificate processing. |
| HMAC zero-length tag forgery in EVP_DigestVerifyFinal, where a zero-length tag could be accepted as valid during HMAC verification. In the OpenSSL-compatibility HMAC verify path the supplied signature length was only checked as not exceeding the MAC length, so a zero-length or otherwise truncated tag could pass verification. The fix requires the supplied tag length to exactly equal the MAC length and rejects a zero-length MAC, so a forged short or empty tag is no longer accepted. |
| The ML-KEM ARM64 NEON ciphertext comparison only compares half of the input, breaking the Fujisaki-Okamoto transform's implicit rejection and weakening IND-CCA2 security on that code path. The constant-time comparison effectively ignored part of the re-encrypted ciphertext, so a decapsulating party could fail to detect a manipulated ciphertext and proceed without the standard's required implicit rejection. |
| PKCS#12 MAC verification uses an attacker-controlled comparison length, weakening the integrity check on the MAC and allowing a mismatched MAC to be accepted. The PKCS#12 verify path compared the locally computed HMAC against the MAC parsed from the PKCS#12 structure using a length taken directly from the attacker-supplied input, without first verifying that it equals the length of the digest actually produced by the configured algorithm. A truncated or zero-length stored MAC could therefore be accepted, defeating the integrity protection of the MAC. |
| When HAVE_ENCRYPT_THEN_MAC is configured, the implementation could fall back to MAC-then-Encrypt rather than enforcing Encrypt-then-MAC. |
| wc_Blake2bHmacFinal and wc_Blake2sHmacFinal discard the message when the key length exceeds the block size, producing a MAC that is independent of the input. When the supplied key is longer than the BLAKE2 block size the key-hashing branch reinitialized the running hash state, discarding the accumulated message data, so the resulting MAC depended only on the key and not on the message being authenticated. This bug is specific to the HMAC-BLAKE2 APIs that were added in wolfSSL version 5.9.0. |
| A flaw in Node.js TLS hostname handling can cause Embedded-nul hostnames can lead to silent authority rebinding due to c-string truncation in resolver bindings.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A inconsistency in Node.js hostname matching can cause a trust-policy bypass in multi-context mTLS setups.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js TLS host verification can cause an attacker to bypass certification validation.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js Permission API can cause a local server to be started (via a Unix domain socket), even without the `--allow-net` permission.
This vulnerability affects one supported release line: **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js TLS hostname handling can cause Node.js unicode dot separator handling can lead to tls wildcard-depth authentication bypass due to resolver and verifier hostname normalization mismat.
This can lead to confidentiality impact or bypass of the intended security boundary under affected configurations.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js WebCrypto implementation can crash the process if the input of `subtle.encrypt()` is a multiple of 2GiB.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js Permission API can cause a file metadata to be modified even on a path that was set as read-only with e.g. `--allow-fs-read`.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js HTTP/2 client allows a server to send an unlimited number of ORIGIN frames, which could lead to an Out of Memory error on the client.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A flaw in Node.js proxy tunnel error handling could expose proxy credentials in `ERR_PROXY_TUNNEL` error messages.
When proxy credentials are embedded in the proxy URL, they may be exposed through error handling paths and captured by logs, diagnostics, or other error consumers.
This vulnerability affects all supported release lines: **Node.js 22**, **Node.js 24**, and **Node.js 26**. |
| A missing sanitisation vulnerability exists with user input in the stats-video.php script. The way URLs to this script were constructed did not follow best practices, and the output of the Smarty custom helper function url was neither properly encoded nor sanitised, allowing user‑supplied input to be reflected without escaping. |
| A missing sanitisation vulnerability of user input in the zone-include.php script exists in Revive Adserver 6.0.7 and earlier. A low‑privileged user could exploit the refresh parameter of the iFrame invocation tag to perform reflected XSS attacks. |
| A stored XSS vulnerabilities exists in the `maintenance-acl-check.php` and `maintenance-banners-check.php` tools of Revive Adserver 6.0.7. The issue was caused by entity names being displayed without proper escaping when inconsistencies were detected. Whether the XSS payload is executed when an administrator uses the affected maintenance tools is not entirely under the attacker's control. |
