| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Dpanel is a Docker visualization panel system which provides complete Docker management functions. The Dpanel service contains a hardcoded JWT secret in its default configuration, allowing attackers to generate valid JWT tokens and compromise the host machine. This security flaw allows attackers to analyze the source code, discover the embedded secret, and craft legitimate JWT tokens. By forging these tokens, an attacker can successfully bypass authentication mechanisms, impersonate privileged users, and gain unauthorized administrative access. Consequently, this enables full control over the host machine, potentially leading to severe consequences such as sensitive data exposure, unauthorized command execution, privilege escalation, or further lateral movement within the network environment. This issue is patched in version 1.6.1. A workaround for this vulnerability involves replacing the hardcoded secret with a securely generated value and load it from secure configuration storage. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIPROTEC 5 6MD84 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD89 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SX82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SX85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UM85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BD-2FO (All versions < V9.62), SIPROTEC 5 Compact 7SX800 (CP050) (All versions < V9.64). The affected devices are supporting weak ciphers on several ports (443/tcp for web, 4443/tcp for DIGSI 5 and configurable port for syslog over TLS).
This could allow an unauthorized attacker in a man-in-the-middle position to decrypt any data passed over to and from those ports. |
| A vulnerability has been found in MartialBE one-hub up to 0.14.27. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file docker-compose.yml. The manipulation of the argument SESSION_SECRET leads to use of hard-coded cryptographic key
. The attack may be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. It is stated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to change the configuration settings. The code maintainer recommends (translated from Chinese): "The default docker-compose example file is not recommended for production use. If you intend to use it in production, please carefully check and modify every configuration and environment variable yourself!" |
| A vulnerability was detected in PandaXGO PandaX up to fb8ff40f7ce5dfebdf66306c6d85625061faf7e5. This affects an unknown function of the file config.yml of the component JWT Secret Handler. The manipulation of the argument key results in use of hard-coded cryptographic key
. The attack may be performed from remote. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitability is reported as difficult. The exploit is now public and may be used. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet. |
| CyberGhostVPNSetup.exe (Windows installer) is signed using the weak cryptographic hash algorithm SHA-1, which is vulnerable to collision attacks. This allows a malicious actor to craft a fake installer with a forged SHA-1 certificate that may still be accepted by Windows signature verification mechanisms, particularly on systems without strict SmartScreen or trust policy enforcement. Additionally, the installer lacks High Entropy Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), as confirmed by BinSkim (BA2015 rule) and repeated WinDbg analysis. The binary consistently loads into predictable memory ranges, increasing the success rate of memory corruption exploits. These two misconfigurations, when combined, significantly lower the bar for successful supply-chain style attacks or privilege escalation through fake installers. |
| Unitree Go2, G1, H1, and B2 devices through 2025-09-20 decrypt BLE packet data by using the df98b715d5c6ed2b25817b6f2554124a key and the 2841ae97419c2973296a0d4bdfe19a4f IV. |
| Pheonix App is a Python application designed to streamline various tasks, from managing files to playing mini-games. The issue is that the map of encoding/decoding languages are visible in code. The Problem was patched in 0.2.4. |
| An issue in the index.js decryptCookie function of cookie-encrypter v1.0.1 allows attackers to execute a bit flipping attack. |
| A vulnerability in the cryptographic logic used by HPE Aruba Networking EdgeConnect SD-WAN Gateways could allow an authenticated remote attacker to gain shell access. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system, potentially leading to unauthorized access and control over the affected systems. |
| "FOD" App uses hard-coded cryptographic keys, which may allow a local unauthenticated attacker to retrieve the cryptographic keys. |
| An issue was discovered on Swissphone DiCal-RED 4009 devices. An attacker with access to the file /etc/deviceconfig may recover the administrative device password via password-cracking methods, because unsalted MD5 is used. |
| The Use of a Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Juniper Networks Juniper Cloud Native Router (JCNR) and containerized routing Protocol Deamon (cRPD) products allows an attacker to perform Person-in-the-Middle (PitM) attacks which results in complete compromise of the container.
Due to hardcoded SSH host keys being present on the container, a PitM attacker can intercept SSH traffic without being detected.
This issue affects Juniper Networks JCNR:
* All versions before 23.4.
This issue affects Juniper Networks cRPD:
* All versions before 23.4R1. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in APOGEE PXC Series (BACnet) (All versions), APOGEE PXC Series (P2 Ethernet) (All versions), TALON TC Series (BACnet) (All versions). Affected devices contain a weak encryption mechanism based on a hard-coded key.
This could allow an attacker to guess or decrypt the password from the cyphertext. |
| An Improper Authorization vulnerability was identified in the EOL OVA based connect component which is deployed for installation purposes in the customer internal network. Under certain conditions, this could allow a bad actor to gain unauthorized access to the local db containing weakly hashed credentials of the installer. This EOL component was deprecated in September 2023 with end of support extended till January 2024. |
| Cryptographic Flaw in PDFium in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed an attacker to read potentially sensitive information from encrypted PDFs via a brute-force attack. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Configured cipher preference order not preserved vulnerability in Apache Tomcat.
This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.16 through 11.0.18, from 10.1.51 through 10.1.52, from 9.0.114 through 9.0.115.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.20, 10.1.53 or 9.0.116, which fix the issue. |
| A Key Exchange without Entity Authentication vulnerability in the SSH implementation of Juniper Networks Apstra allows a unauthenticated, MITM
attacker to impersonate managed devices.
Due to insufficient SSH host key validation an attacker can perform a machine-in-the-middle attack on the SSH connections from Apstra to managed devices, enabling an attacker to impersonate a managed device and capture user credentials.
This issue affects all versions of Apstra before 6.1.1. |
| An issue was discovered in the ALFA Windows 10 driver 6.1316.1209 for AWUS036H. The WEP, WPA, WPA2, and WPA3 implementations accept plaintext frames in a protected Wi-Fi network. An adversary can abuse this to inject arbitrary data frames independent of the network configuration. |
| The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that the A-MSDU flag in the plaintext QoS header field is authenticated. Against devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames (which is mandatory as part of 802.11n), an adversary can abuse this to inject arbitrary network packets. |
| Cocos AI is a confidential computing system for AI. The current implementation of attested TLS (aTLS) in CoCoS is vulnerable to a relay attack affecting all versions from v0.4.0 through v0.8.2. This vulnerability is present in both the AMD SEV-SNP and Intel TDX deployment targets supported by CoCoS. In the affected design, an attacker may be able to extract the ephemeral TLS private key used during the intra-handshake attestation. Because the attestation evidence is bound to the ephemeral key but not to the TLS channel, possession of that key is sufficient to relay or divert the attested TLS session. A client will accept the connection under false assumptions about the endpoint it is communicating with — the attestation report cannot distinguish the genuine attested service from the attacker's relay. This undermines the intended authentication guarantees of attested TLS. A successful attack may allow an attacker to impersonate an attested CoCoS service and access data or operations that the client intended to send only to the genuine attested endpoint. Exploitation requires the attacker to first extract the ephemeral TLS private key, which is possible through physical access to the server hardware, transient execution attacks, or side-channel attacks. Note that the aTLS implementation was fully redesigned in v0.7.0, but the redesign does not address this vulnerability. The relay attack weakness is architectural and affects all releases in the v0.4.0–v0.8.2 range. This vulnerability class was formally analyzed and demonstrated across multiple attested TLS implementations, including CoCoS, by researchers whose findings were disclosed to the IETF TLS Working Group. Formal verification was conducted using ProVerif. As of time of publication, there is no patch available. No complete workaround is available. The following hardening measures reduce but do not eliminate the risk: Keep TEE firmware and microcode up to date to reduce the key-extraction surface; define strict attestation policies that validate all available report fields, including firmware versions, TCB levels, and platform configuration registers; and/or enable mutual aTLS with CA-signed certificates where deployment architecture permits. |
