-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2019-18635
•
published on October 30, 2019
An issue was discovered in Mooltipass Moolticute through v0.42.1 and v0.42.x-testing through v0.42.5-testing. There is a NULL pointer dereference in MPDevice_win.cpp.
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
-
CVE-2018-21029
•
published on October 30, 2019
systemd 239 through 245 accepts any certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority for DNS Over TLS. Server Name Indication (SNI) is not sent, and there is no hostname validation with the GnuTLS backend. NOTE: This has been disputed by the developer as not a vulnerability since hostname validation does not have anything to do with this issue (i.e. there is no hostname to be sent)
