An issue was discovered in Stormshield Network Security (SNS) 4.0.0 through 4.3.21, 4.4.0 through 4.6.8, and 4.7.0. Sending a crafted ICMP packet may lead to a crash of the ASQ engine.

An issue was discovered in Stormshield Network Security (SNS) 3.7.0 through 3.7.39, 3.11.0 through 3.11.27, 4.3.0 through 4.3.22, 4.6.0 through 4.6.9, and 4.7.0 through 4.7.1. It's possible to know if a specific user account exists on the SNS firewall by using remote access commands.

On Feb 15, 2023, the following vulnerability in the ClamAV scanning library was disclosed: A vulnerability in the DMG file parser of ClamAV versions 1.0.0 and earlier, 0.105.1 and earlier, and 0.103.7 and earlier could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to access sensitive information on an affected device. This vulnerability is due to enabling XML entity substitution that may result in XML external entity injection. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted DMG file to be scanned by ClamAV on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to leak bytes from any file that may be read by the ClamAV scanning process.

On Feb 15, 2023, the following vulnerability in the ClamAV scanning library was disclosed: A vulnerability in the HFS+ partition file parser of ClamAV versions 1.0.0 and earlier, 0.105.1 and earlier, and 0.103.7 and earlier could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code. This vulnerability is due to a missing buffer size check that may result in a heap buffer overflow write. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HFS+ partition file to be scanned by ClamAV on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the ClamAV scanning process, or else crash the process, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition. For a description of this vulnerability, see the ClamAV blog ["https://blog.clamav.net/"].

There is a type confusion vulnerability relating to X.400 address processing inside an X.509 GeneralName. X.400 addresses were parsed as an ASN1_STRING but the public structure definition for GENERAL_NAME incorrectly specified the type of the x400Address field as ASN1_TYPE. This field is subsequently interpreted by the OpenSSL function GENERAL_NAME_cmp as an ASN1_TYPE rather than an ASN1_STRING. When CRL checking is enabled (i.e. the application sets the X509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK flag), this vulnerability may allow an attacker to pass arbitrary pointers to a memcmp call, enabling them to read memory contents or enact a denial of service. In most cases, the attack requires the attacker to provide both the certificate chain and CRL, neither of which need to have a valid signature. If the attacker only controls one of these inputs, the other input must already contain an X.400 address as a CRL distribution point, which is uncommon. As such, this vulnerability is most likely to only affect applications which have implemented their own functionality for retrieving CRLs over a network.

The function PEM_read_bio_ex() reads a PEM file from a BIO and parses and decodes the "name" (e.g. "CERTIFICATE"), any header data and the payload data. If the function succeeds then the "name_out", "header" and "data" arguments are populated with pointers to buffers containing the relevant decoded data. The caller is responsible for freeing those buffers. It is possible to construct a PEM file that results in 0 bytes of payload data. In this case PEM_read_bio_ex() will return a failure code but will populate the header argument with a pointer to a buffer that has already been freed. If the caller also frees this buffer then a double free will occur. This will most likely lead to a crash. This could be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to supply malicious PEM files for parsing to achieve a denial of service attack. The functions PEM_read_bio() and PEM_read() are simple wrappers around PEM_read_bio_ex() and therefore these functions are also directly affected. These functions are also called indirectly by a number of other OpenSSL functions including PEM_X509_INFO_read_bio_ex() and SSL_CTX_use_serverinfo_file() which are also vulnerable. Some OpenSSL internal uses of these functions are not vulnerable because the caller does not free the header argument if PEM_read_bio_ex() returns a failure code. These locations include the PEM_read_bio_TYPE() functions as well as the decoders introduced in OpenSSL 3.0. The OpenSSL asn1parse command line application is also impacted by this issue.

A timing based side channel exists in the OpenSSL RSA Decryption implementation which could be sufficient to recover a plaintext across a network in a Bleichenbacher style attack. To achieve a successful decryption an attacker would have to be able to send a very large number of trial messages for decryption. The vulnerability affects all RSA padding modes: PKCS#1 v1.5, RSA-OEAP and RSASVE. For example, in a TLS connection, RSA is commonly used by a client to send an encrypted pre-master secret to the server. An attacker that had observed a genuine connection between a client and a server could use this flaw to send trial messages to the server and record the time taken to process them. After a sufficiently large number of messages the attacker could recover the pre-master secret used for the original connection and thus be able to decrypt the application data sent over that connection.

zlib through 1.2.12 has a heap-based buffer over-read or buffer overflow in inflate in inflate.c via a large gzip header extra field. NOTE: only applications that call inflateGetHeader are affected. Some common applications bundle the affected zlib source code but may be unable to call inflateGetHeader (e.g., see the nodejs/node reference).

The Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol allows remote attackers (from the client side) to send arbitrary numbers that are actually not public keys, and trigger expensive server-side DHE modular-exponentiation calculations, aka a D(HE)at or D(HE)ater attack. The client needs very little CPU resources and network bandwidth. The attack may be more disruptive in cases where a client can require a server to select its largest supported key size. The basic attack scenario is that the client must claim that it can only communicate with DHE, and the server must be configured to allow DHE.