Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The DROWN (Decrypting RSA with Obsolete and Weakened eNcryption) attack is a cross-protocol security bug that attacks servers supporting modern SSLv3/TLS protocol suites by using their support for the obsolete, insecure, SSL v2 protocol to leverage an attack on connections using up-to-date protocols that would otherwise be secure.
The bar mitzvah attack is an attack on the SSL/TLS protocols that exploits the use of the RC4 cipher with weak keys for that cipher. [1] [2] While this affects only the first hundred or so bytes of only the very small fraction of connections that happen to use weak keys, it allows significant compromise of user security, for example by allowing the interception of password information [2 ...
The SSL certificate allowed the application to decrypt outgoing traffic to analyse it. [19] Once the new SSL certificate was installed, the application alerted Equifax's employees to suspicious network activity. The certificate had been expired for nine months. [20] By July 30, Equifax shut off the exploit. [14]
In computer network security, session fixation attacks attempt to exploit the vulnerability of a system that allows one person to fixate (find or set) another person's session identifier. Most session fixation attacks are web based, and most rely on session identifiers being accepted from URLs (query string) or POST data.
CRL for a revoked cert of Verisign CA. There are two different states of revocation defined in RFC 5280: Revoked A certificate is irreversibly revoked if, for example, it is discovered that the certificate authority (CA) had improperly issued a certificate, or if a private-key is thought to have been compromised.
Freund noticed that SSH connections were generating an unexpectedly high amount of CPU usage as well as causing errors in Valgrind, [9] a memory debugging tool. [10] Freund reported his finding to Openwall Project 's open source security mailing list, [ 9 ] which brought it to the attention of various software vendors. [ 10 ]
A workaround for SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0, roughly equivalent to random IVs from TLS 1.1, was widely adopted by many implementations in late 2011. [30] In 2014, the POODLE vulnerability of SSL 3.0 was discovered, which takes advantage of the known vulnerabilities in CBC, and an insecure fallback negotiation used in browsers. [31]
A server implements an HSTS policy by supplying a header over an HTTPS connection (HSTS headers over HTTP are ignored). [1] For example, a server could send a header such that future requests to the domain for the next year (max-age is specified in seconds; 31,536,000 is equal to one non-leap year) use only HTTPS: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000.