CVE-2016-0703
published 2016-03-02CVE-2016-0703: The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2…
PriorityP337medium5.9CVSS 3.0
AVNACHPRNUINSUCHINAN
EPSS
5.40%
91.8th percentile
The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2a accepts a nonzero CLIENT-MASTER-KEY CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH value for an arbitrary cipher, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to determine the MASTER-KEY value and decrypt TLS ciphertext data by leveraging a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle, a related issue to CVE-2016-0800.
Affected
39 ranges· showing 25
| Vendor | Product | Version range | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| debian | openssl | < openssl 1.0.0c-2 (bookworm) | openssl 1.0.0c-2 (bookworm) |
| openssl | openssl | <= 0.9.8ze | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
| openssl | openssl | — | — |
CVSS provenance
nvdv3.05.9MEDIUMCVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvdv2.04.3MEDIUMAV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
osv5.9MEDIUM
vendor_debian5.9MEDIUM
vendor_redhat5.9MEDIUM
Stop checking back — get the weekly exploitation signal.
Every Monday: what got weaponized or added to CISA KEV in the last seven days — each CVE cross-linked to its PoC, Nuclei template, and detection rule. Free, one email a week, unsubscribe in one click.
CISA ICS
Siemens SCALANCE X-200RNA Switch Devices
cisa_ics·2022-12-19
Siemens SCALANCE X-200RNA Switch Devices
## Archived Content In an effort to keep CISA.gov current, the archive contains outdated information that may not reflect current policy or programs.
ICS Advisory
##
Siemens SCALANCE X-200RNA Switch Devices
Last RevisedDecember 19, 2022
Alert CodeICSA-22-349-21
## 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- CVSS v3 9.8
- ATTENTION: Exploitable remotely/low attack complexity/public exploits are available
- Vendor: Siemens
- Equipment: SCALANCE X-200RNA switch devices before V3.2.7
- Vulnerabilities: Observable Timing Discrepancy; Race Condition; Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer; Improper Input Validation; NULL Pointer Dereference; Use After Free; Cryptographic Issues; Comparison of Incompatible Types; Resource Management
Palo Alto
PAN-SA-2016-0030 OpenSSL Vulnerabilities
vendor_paloalto·2016-10-18·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] CWE-200 PAN-SA-2016-0030 OpenSSL Vulnerabilities
PAN-SA-2016-0030 OpenSSL Vulnerabilities
The OpenSSL library has been found to contain vulnerabilities CVE-2016-0703, CVE-2016-0704, and CVE-2016-0800. Palo Alto Networks software makes use of the vulnerable library. (Ref # PAN-55477/92481) The OpenSSL library in use by PAN-OS is patched on a regular basis. Severities of the CVEs listed under the summary section range from moderate to high but have not been shown to be exploitable at the time of this advisory. This issue affects PAN-OS 5.0; PAN-OS 5.1; PAN-OS 6.0.14 and earlier; PAN-OS 6.1.11 and earlier CVE CVSS Summary CVE-2016-0703 5.9 ( CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N ) The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2
BSD
FreeBSD-SA-16:12.openssl: Multiple OpenSSL vulnerabilities
bsd_advisories·2016-03-10·CVSS 5.1
CVE-2016-0702 [MEDIUM] FreeBSD-SA-16:12.openssl: Multiple OpenSSL vulnerabilities
FreeBSD-SA-16:12.openssl Security Advisory
The FreeBSD Project
Topic: Multiple OpenSSL vulnerabilities
Category: contrib
Module: openssl
Announced: 2016-03-10
Credits: OpenSSL Project
Affects: All supported versions of FreeBSD.
Corrected: 2016-03-04 00:40:15 UTC (stable/10, 10.2-BETA3)
2016-03-03 07:30:55 UTC (releng/10.2, 10.2-RELEASE-p13)
2016-03-03 07:30:55 UTC (releng/10.1, 10.1-RELEASE-p30)
2016-03-10 03:58:48 UTC (stable/9, 9.3-STABLE)
2016-03-10 10:03:28 UTC (releng/9.3, 9.3-RELEASE-p38)
CVE Name: CVE-2016-0702, CVE-2016-0703, CVE-2016-0704, CVE-2016-0705
CVE-2016-0797, CVE-2016-0798, CVE-2016-0799, CVE-2016-0800
For general information regarding FreeBSD Security Advisories,
including descriptions of the fields above, security branches, and the
following sections, please visit .
Cisco
Multiple Vulnerabilities in OpenSSL Affecting Cisco Products: March 2016
vendor_cisco·2016-03-02
CVE-2016-0702 [MEDIUM] CWE-119 Multiple Vulnerabilities in OpenSSL Affecting Cisco Products: March 2016
Multiple Vulnerabilities in OpenSSL Affecting Cisco Products: March 2016
On March 1, 2016, the OpenSSL Software Foundation released a security advisory detailing seven vulnerabilities and a new attack, referred to as the Decrypting RSA with Obsolete and Weakened eNcryption (DROWN) attack. A total of eight Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) were assigned. Of the eight CVEs, three relate to the DROWN attack. The remaining CVEs track low severity vulnerabilities.
DROWN is a cross-protocol attack that actively exploits weaknesses in SSL Version 2 (SSLv2) to decrypt passively collected Transport Layer Security (TLS) sessions. DROWN does not exploit a vulnerability in the TLS protocol or any specific implementation of the protocol.
To execute a successful DROWN attack, the attacker m
Red Hat
openssl: Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2
vendor_redhat·2016-03-01·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] openssl: Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2
openssl: Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2
The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2a accepts a nonzero CLIENT-MASTER-KEY CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH value for an arbitrary cipher, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to determine the MASTER-KEY value and decrypt TLS ciphertext data by leveraging a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle, a related issue to CVE-2016-0800.
It was discovered that the SSLv2 servers using OpenSSL accepted SSLv2 connection handshakes that indicated non-zero clear key length for non-export cipher suites. An attacker could use this flaw to decrypt recorded SSLv2 sessions with the server by using it as a decryption oracle.
Package: ope
Debian
CVE-2016-0703: openssl - The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in O...
vendor_debian·2016·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] CVE-2016-0703: openssl - The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in O...
The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2a accepts a nonzero CLIENT-MASTER-KEY CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH value for an arbitrary cipher, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to determine the MASTER-KEY value and decrypt TLS ciphertext data by leveraging a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle, a related issue to CVE-2016-0800.
Scope: local
bookworm: resolved (fixed in 1.0.0c-2)
bullseye: resolved (fixed in 1.0.0c-2)
forky: resolved (fixed in 1.0.0c-2)
sid: resolved (fixed in 1.0.0c-2)
trixie: resolved (fixed in 1.0.0c-2)
Cisco
Multiple Vulnerabilities in OpenSSL Affecting Cisco Products: March 2016
vendor_cisco
CVE-2016-0703 Multiple Vulnerabilities in OpenSSL Affecting Cisco Products: March 2016
CVE-2016-0703: Multiple Vulnerabilities in OpenSSL Affecting Cisco Products: March 2016
On March 1, 2016, the OpenSSL Software Foundation released a security advisory detailing seven vulnerabilities and a new attack, referred to as the Decrypting RSA with Obsolete and Weakened eNcryption (DROWN) attack. A total of eight Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) were assigned. Of the eight CVEs, three relate to the DROWN attack. The remaining CVEs track low severity vulnerabilities. DROWN is a cross-protocol attack that actively exploits weaknesses in SSL Version 2 (SSLv2) to decrypt passively collected Transport Layer Security (TLS) sessions. DROWN does not exploit a vulnerability in the TLS protocol or any specific implementation of the protocol. To execute a successful DROWN attack, th
GHSA
GHSA-jqfv-c9gp-wf8f: The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr
ghsa_unreviewed·2022-05-13·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] CWE-200 GHSA-jqfv-c9gp-wf8f: The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr
The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2a accepts a nonzero CLIENT-MASTER-KEY CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH value for an arbitrary cipher, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to determine the MASTER-KEY value and decrypt TLS ciphertext data by leveraging a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle, a related issue to CVE-2016-0800.
OSV
CVE-2016-0703: The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr
osv·2016-03-02·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] CVE-2016-0703: The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr
The get_client_master_key function in s2_srvr.c in the SSLv2 implementation in OpenSSL before 0.9.8zf, 1.0.0 before 1.0.0r, 1.0.1 before 1.0.1m, and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2a accepts a nonzero CLIENT-MASTER-KEY CLEAR-KEY-LENGTH value for an arbitrary cipher, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to determine the MASTER-KEY value and decrypt TLS ciphertext data by leveraging a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle, a related issue to CVE-2016-0800.
No detection rules found.
No public exploits indexed.
Tenable
[R3] LCE 5.0.0 Fixes Multiple Third-party Library Vulnerabilities
blogs_tenable·2017-01-31
[R3] LCE 5.0.0 Fixes Multiple Third-party Library Vulnerabilities
## Cloud Exposure
Tenable Cloud Security (CNAPP) Request a demo
Tenable Cloud Vulnerability Management Request a demo
Tenable CIEM Request a demo
Secure your cloud
## Vulnerability Exposure
Tenable Vulnerability Management Try for free
Tenable Security Center Request a demo
Tenable Web App Scanning Try for free
Tenable Patch Management Request a demo
Tenable Enclave Security Request a demo
Tenable Attack Surface Management Request a demo
Tenable Nessus Try for free
## AI Exposure
Tenable AI Exposure Request a demo
## OT/IoT Exposure
Tenable OT Security Request a demo
## Identity Exposure
Tenable Identity Exposure Request a demo
## Business needs
Active Directory
AI Security Posture Management (AI-SPM)
AWS security
Azure security
Cloud Security Posture Man
Tenable
New Scan Policies, Plugins and Dashboard for CVE-2016-0800: DROWN
blogs_tenable·2016-03-07·CVSS 5.9
[MEDIUM] New Scan Policies, Plugins and Dashboard for CVE-2016-0800: DROWN
## Cloud Exposure
Tenable Cloud Security (CNAPP) Request a demo
Tenable Cloud Vulnerability Management Request a demo
Tenable CIEM Request a demo
Secure your cloud
## Vulnerability Exposure
Tenable Vulnerability Management Try for free
Tenable Security Center Request a demo
Tenable Web App Scanning Try for free
Tenable Patch Management Request a demo
Tenable Enclave Security Request a demo
Tenable Attack Surface Management Request a demo
Tenable Nessus Try for free
## AI Exposure
Tenable AI Exposure Request a demo
## OT/IoT Exposure
Tenable OT Security Request a demo
## Identity Exposure
Tenable Identity Exposure Request a demo
## Business needs
Active Directory
AI Security Posture Management (AI-SPM)
AWS security
Azure security
Cloud Security Posture Man
Tenable
New Scan Policies, Plugins and Dashboard for CVE-2016-0800: DROWN
blogs_tenable·2016-03-07·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0800 [MEDIUM] New Scan Policies, Plugins and Dashboard for CVE-2016-0800: DROWN
Blog /
Subscribe
# New Scan Policies, Plugins and Dashboard for CVE-2016-0800: DROWN
Kelly Prevett
March 7, 2016
3 Min Read
No matter which product you have, Nessus®, SecurityCenter™, SecurityCenter CV™, or Passive Vulnerability Scanner™, Tenable can determine if you are at risk of “drowning.”
The DROWN CVE-2016-0800 vulnerability is a cross protocol vulnerability that enables an attacker to decrypt TLS connections between up-to-date clients and servers by sending packets to any server that supports SSLv2 using the same private key.
The DROWN vulnerability’s impact is made worse by two additional OpenSSL implementation vulnerabilities:
- CVE-2015-3197, which allows a DROWN attacker to connect to the server with disabled SSLv2 ciphersuites, provided that support for SSLv2 itself is
Qualys
SSL Labs DROWN Test Implementation Details | Qualys
blogs_qualys·2016-03-04·CVSS 5.9
[MEDIUM] SSL Labs DROWN Test Implementation Details | Qualys
Two days ago the DROWN vulnerability came to light , showing new ways to attack TLS. SSL Labs deployed tests for DROWN in the staging environment yesterday, and we’ll be pushing it to production shortly. Because DROWN is a tricky problem, the aim of this blog post is to provide an explanation of what we test for and how exactly.
First of all, we have known SSL v2 to be insecure for a very long time—over 20 years. As a result, even before DROWN SSL Labs used to give Fs to servers that supported this ancient version of the SSL protocol. DROWN actually makes things worse, because it abuses SSL v2 to attack all other protocols.
Further, DROWN introduces two additional attack vectors:
A server that has SSL v2 enabled can be used to attack any other servers that reuse the same RSA key; even t
Qualys
SSL Labs DROWN Test Implementation Details | Qualys
blogs_qualys·2016-03-04·CVSS 5.9
[MEDIUM] SSL Labs DROWN Test Implementation Details | Qualys
Two days ago the DROWN vulnerability came to light, showing new ways to attack TLS. SSL Labs deployed tests for DROWN in the staging environment yesterday, and we’ll be pushing it to production shortly. Because DROWN is a tricky problem, the aim of this blog post is to provide an explanation of what we test for and how exactly.
First of all, we have known SSL v2 to be insecure for a very long time—over 20 years. As a result, even before DROWN SSL Labs used to give Fs to servers that supported this ancient version of the SSL protocol. DROWN actually makes things worse, because it abuses SSL v2 to attack all other protocols.
Further, DROWN introduces two additional attack vectors:
- A server that has SSL v2 enabled can be used to attack any other servers that reuse the same RSA key; even
Tenable
[R12] OpenSSL '20160301' Advisory Affects Tenable Products
blogs_tenable·2016-03-02
[R12] OpenSSL '20160301' Advisory Affects Tenable Products
## Cloud Exposure
Tenable Cloud Security (CNAPP) Request a demo
Tenable Cloud Vulnerability Management Request a demo
Tenable CIEM Request a demo
Secure your cloud
## Vulnerability Exposure
Tenable Vulnerability Management Try for free
Tenable Security Center Request a demo
Tenable Web App Scanning Try for free
Tenable Patch Management Request a demo
Tenable Enclave Security Request a demo
Tenable Attack Surface Management Request a demo
Tenable Nessus Try for free
## AI Exposure
Tenable AI Exposure Request a demo
## OT/IoT Exposure
Tenable OT Security Request a demo
## Identity Exposure
Tenable Identity Exposure Request a demo
## Business needs
Active Directory
AI Security Posture Management (AI-SPM)
AWS security
Azure security
Cloud Security Posture Man
HackerOne
Cross-protocol attack on TLS using SSLv2 (DROWN) (CVE-2016-0800)
hackerone·2016-09-21·CVSS 5.9
CVE-2016-0800 [MEDIUM] Cross-protocol attack on TLS using SSLv2 (DROWN) (CVE-2016-0800)
Cross-protocol attack on TLS using SSLv2 (DROWN) (CVE-2016-0800)
General DROWN was responsibly disclosed to the OpenSSL team prior to the public disclosure.
This OpenSSL blog post, by Viktor Dukhovni and Emilia Käsper, describes the vulnerability:
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2016/03/01/an-openssl-users-guide-to-drown/
This is probably a good opportunity to again thank everyone who helped with the disclosure process :-)
Severity: High
A cross-protocol attack was discovered that could lead to decryption of TLS sessions by using a server supporting SSLv2 and EXPORT cipher suites as a Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle. Note that traffic between clients and non-vulnerable servers can be decrypted provided another server supporting SSLv2 and EXPORT ciphers (even with a different protoc
HackerOne
Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2 (CVE-2016-0703)
hackerone·2016-06-01·CVSS 5.0
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2 (CVE-2016-0703)
Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2 (CVE-2016-0703)
This is a retroactive submission of CVE-2016-0703, a.k.a. the "Extra Clear" bug, which can lead to the Special DROWN variant of the DROWN attack. After some discussion with the other DROWN authors, I'm submitting on behalf of myself (David Adrian) and J. Alex Halderman the vulnerability CVE-2016-0703, which was acknowledged by OpenSSL as Sev:High at https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160301.txt.
This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
time the code was refactored to address vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
s2_srvr.c did not enforce that clear-key-length is 0 for non-export ciphers. If
clear-key bytes are present for these ciphers, they *displace* encrypted-key
bytes. This leads to an e
Bugzilla
CVE-2016-0704 openssl: SSLv2 Bleichenbacher protection overwrites wrong bytes for export ciphers
bugzilla·2016-02-22·CVSS 5.0
CVE-2016-0704 [MEDIUM] CVE-2016-0704 openssl: SSLv2 Bleichenbacher protection overwrites wrong bytes for export ciphers
CVE-2016-0704 openssl: SSLv2 Bleichenbacher protection overwrites wrong bytes for export ciphers
Quoting upstream advisory:
This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
time the code was refactored to address the vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
s2_srvr.c overwrite the wrong bytes in the master-key when applying
Bleichenbacher protection for export cipher suites. This provides a
Bleichenbacher oracle, and could potentially allow more efficient variants of
the DROWN attack.
This issue affected OpenSSL versions 1.0.2, 1.0.1l, 1.0.0q, 0.9.8ze and all
earlier versions. It was fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2a, 1.0.1m, 1.0.0r and 0.9.8zf
(released March 19th 2015).
This issue was reported to OpenSSL on February 10th 2016 by David Adrian and J.
Alex Halderman of the Univ
Bugzilla
CVE-2016-0800 SSL/TLS: Cross-protocol attack on TLS using SSLv2 (DROWN)
bugzilla·2016-02-22·CVSS 5.0
CVE-2016-0800 [MEDIUM] CVE-2016-0800 SSL/TLS: Cross-protocol attack on TLS using SSLv2 (DROWN)
CVE-2016-0800 SSL/TLS: Cross-protocol attack on TLS using SSLv2 (DROWN)
A group of security researchers discovered that SSLv2 (Secure Sockets Layer protocol version 2.0) is vulnerable to the Bleichenbacher RSA padding oracle attack, which can be used to decrypt RSA cipher text without knowledge of the matching private RSA key by observing responses form a server that has the private key and performs decryption of attacker provided cipher texts using that key. This flaw is a SSLv2 protocol issue and affects all implementations of the protocol.
They also demonstrated a cross-protocol attack which allows them to decrypt SSL/TLS sessions using newer protocol versions - SSLv3 or any current TLS (Transport Layer Security) version (1.0 - 1.2) - using this SSLv2 weakness. This cross-protocol att
Bugzilla
CVE-2016-0703 openssl: Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2
bugzilla·2016-02-22·CVSS 5.0
CVE-2016-0703 [MEDIUM] CVE-2016-0703 openssl: Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2
CVE-2016-0703 openssl: Divide-and-conquer session key recovery in SSLv2
Quoting upstream advisory:
This issue only affected versions of OpenSSL prior to March 19th 2015 at which
time the code was refactored to address vulnerability CVE-2015-0293.
s2_srvr.c did not enforce that clear-key-length is 0 for non-export ciphers. If
clear-key bytes are present for these ciphers, they *displace* encrypted-key
bytes. This leads to an efficient divide-and-conquer key recovery attack: if an
eavesdropper has intercepted an SSLv2 handshake, they can use the server as an
oracle to determine the SSLv2 master-key, using only 16 connections to the
server and negligible computation.
More importantly, this leads to a more efficient version of DROWN that is
effective against non-export ciphersuites, and re
arXiv
One Bad Apple Spoils the Barrel: Understanding the Security Risks Introduced by Third-Party Components in IoT Firmware
arxiv_fulltext·2022-12-29
One Bad Apple Spoils the Barrel: Understanding the Security Risks Introduced by Third-Party Components in IoT Firmware
One Bad Apple Spoils the Barrel: Understanding the Security Risks Introduced by Third-Party Components in IoT Firmware
## Abstract
Currently, the development of IoT firmware heavily depends on third-party components (TPCs) to improve development efficiency. Nevertheless, TPCs are not secure, and the vulnerabilities in TPCs will influence the security of IoT firmware. Existing works pay less attention to the vulnerabilities caused by TPCs, and we still lack a comprehensive understanding of the security impact of TPC vulnerability against firmware. To fill in the knowledge gap, we design and implement , which leverages syntactical features and control-flow graph features to detect the TPCs in firmware, and then recognizes the corresponding vulnerabilities. Based on , we present the first l
arXiv
Secure by default - the case of TLS
arxiv_fulltext·2017-08-24
Secure by default - the case of TLS
Secure by default -- the case of TLS
Martin Stanek \ 1ex]
Department of Computer Science
Comenius University
@dcs.fmph.uniba.sk
## Abstract
Default configuration of various software applications often neglects security objectives.
We tested the default configuration of TLS in dozen web and application servers.
The results show that ``secure by default'' principle should be adopted more broadly
by developers and package maintainers. In addition, system administrators cannot
rely blindly on default security options.
: TLS, secure defaults, testing.
## Introduction
Security often depends on prudent configuration of software components used in a deployed
system. All necessary security controls and options are there, but one have
to turn them on or simply start using them. Unfortunately
http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=JSA10759http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00001.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00002.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00003.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00004.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00006.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00007.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00009.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00010.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00012.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00017.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00025.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-04/msg00038.htmlhttp://openssl.org/news/secadv/20160301.txthttp://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20160302-opensslhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/bulletinapr2016-2952098.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/bulletinjan2016-2867206.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulletinjan2016-2867209.htmlhttp://www.securityfocus.com/bid/83743http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1035133https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-412672.pdfhttps://drownattack.comhttps://git.openssl.org/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commit%3Bh=ae50d8270026edf5b3c7f8aaa0c6677462b33d97https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en_US&docId=emr_na-hpesbhf03741en_ushttps://h20566.www2.hpe.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c05141441https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA40168https://security.FreeBSD.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-16:12.openssl.aschttps://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201603-15https://www.arista.com/en/support/advisories-notices/security-advisories/1260-security-advisory-18https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160301.txthttp://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=JSA10759http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00001.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00002.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00003.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00004.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00006.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00007.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00009.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00010.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00012.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00017.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-03/msg00025.htmlhttp://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2016-04/msg00038.htmlhttp://openssl.org/news/secadv/20160301.txthttp://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20160302-opensslhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/bulletinapr2016-2952098.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/bulletinjan2016-2867206.htmlhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/linuxbulletinjan2016-2867209.htmlhttp://www.securityfocus.com/bid/83743http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1035133https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-412672.pdfhttps://drownattack.comhttps://git.openssl.org/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commit%3Bh=ae50d8270026edf5b3c7f8aaa0c6677462b33d97https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en_US&docId=emr_na-hpesbhf03741en_ushttps://h20566.www2.hpe.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c05141441https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA40168https://security.FreeBSD.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-16:12.openssl.aschttps://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201603-15https://www.arista.com/en/support/advisories-notices/security-advisories/1260-security-advisory-18https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160301.txt
2016-03-02
Published