Vulnerability database
Every flaw the U.S. government’s cybersecurity agency (CISA) has confirmed attackers are using, plus the new WordPress plugin and theme bugs published each day, sorted by what they mean for a small business. We refresh it twice a day. If you see something your website or office runs, tell us.
2 results
Jun 1, 2023libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications.CVE-2023-32690 · Other software · DMTF · reported by GitHubMedium 5.7
libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. Prior to versions 2.3.3 and 3.0, following a successful CAPABILITIES response, a libspdm Requester stores the Responder's CTExponent into its context without validation. If the Requester sends a request message that requires a cryptography operation by the Responder, such as CHALLENGE, libspdm will calculate the timeout value using the Responder's unvalidated CTExponent. A patch is available in version 2.3.3. A workaround is also available. After completion of VCA, the Requester can check the value of the Responder's CTExponent. If it greater than or equal to 64, then the Requester can stop communication with the Responder.
- Product
- libspdm
- What to do
- Apply the vendor’s update. The NVD record links to the advisory.
May 8, 2023libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications.CVE-2023-31127 · Other software · DMTF · reported by GitHubCritical 9
libspdm is a sample implementation that follows the DMTF SPDM specifications. A vulnerability has been identified in SPDM session establishment in libspdm prior to version 2.3.1. If a device supports both DHE session and PSK session with mutual authentication, the attacker may be able to establish the session with `KEY_EXCHANGE` and `PSK_FINISH` to bypass the mutual authentication. This is most likely to happen when the Requester begins a session using one method (DHE, for example) and then uses the other method's finish (PSK_FINISH in this example) to establish the session. The session hashes would be expected to fail in this case, but the condition was not detected. This issue only impacts the SPDM responder, which supports `KEY_EX_CAP=1 and `PSK_CAP=10b` at same time with mutual authentication requirement. The SPDM requester is not impacted. The SPDM responder is not impacted if `KEY_EX_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=0` or `PSK_CAP=01b`. The SPDM responder is not impacted if mutual authentication is not required. libspdm 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 are all impacted. Older branches are not maintained, but users of the 2.3 branch may receive a patch in version 2.3.2. The SPDM specification (DSP
- Product
- libspdm
- What to do
- Apply the vendor’s update. The NVD record links to the advisory.
Where this comes from: the exploited list is CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. Everything else is the whole National Vulnerability Database, where each record is published by the team that found the bug (Wordfence, Patchstack, WPScan, the vendors themselves and others); we show who. Exploit odds are FIRST’s EPSS, updated daily. Titles and categories are ours, so check the linked record before acting on a detail. For a write-up of the big ones, see our advisories. Every vendor, and every WordPress plugin and theme with a recorded flaw, also has its own page. All of it is free to reuse as JSON, CSV or RSS.
Weekly security brief
The flaws that hit local websites, every Friday.
One short email: what got exploited this week, which WordPress plugins broke, and what to check. Unsubscribe in one click.
Tell us what you're building.
A website, your marketing, a security check, an app, or the thing you've been running out of a spreadsheet for three years. A few lines is plenty.
Not ready to talk yet? Run the free website check and see what Google sees.