Total
88 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-59438 | 1 Arm | 1 Mbed Tls | 2025-10-23 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Mbed TLS through 3.6.4 has an Observable Timing Discrepancy. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54764 | 2025-10-21 | N/A | 6.2 MEDIUM | ||
| Mbed TLS before 3.6.5 allows a local timing attack against certain RSA operations, and direct calls to mbedtls_mpi_mod_inv or mbedtls_mpi_gcd. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54499 | 1 Mattermost | 1 Mattermost Server | 2025-10-21 | N/A | 3.1 LOW |
| Mattermost versions 10.5.x <= 10.5.10, 10.11.x <= 10.11.2 fail to use constant-time comparison for sensitive string comparisons which allows attackers to exploit timing oracles to perform byte-by-byte brute force attacks via response time analysis on Cloud API keys and OAuth client secrets | |||||
| CVE-2024-7010 | 1 Mudler | 1 Localai | 2025-10-15 | N/A | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| mudler/localai version 2.17.1 is vulnerable to a Timing Attack. This type of side-channel attack allows an attacker to compromise the cryptosystem by analyzing the time taken to execute cryptographic algorithms. Specifically, in the context of password handling, an attacker can determine valid login credentials based on the server's response time, potentially leading to unauthorized access. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0693 | 2025-10-14 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM | ||
| Variable response times in the AWS Sign-in IAM user login flow allowed for the use of brute force enumeration techniques to identify valid IAM usernames in an arbitrary AWS account. | |||||
| CVE-2024-36469 | 1 Zabbix | 1 Zabbix | 2025-10-08 | N/A | 3.1 LOW |
| Execution time for an unsuccessful login differs when using a non-existing username compared to using an existing one. | |||||
| CVE-2024-42512 | 1 Opcfoundation | 1 Ua .net Standard Stack | 2025-09-29 | N/A | 8.6 HIGH |
| Vulnerability in the OPC UA .NET Standard Stack before 1.5.374.158 allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass application authentication when the deprecated Basic128Rsa15 security policy is enabled. | |||||
| CVE-2025-9031 | 2025-09-24 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM | ||
| Observable Timing Discrepancy vulnerability in DivvyDrive Information Technologies Inc. DivvyDrive Web allows Cross-Domain Search Timing.This issue affects DivvyDrive Web: from 4.8.2.2 before 4.8.2.15. | |||||
| CVE-2025-59432 | 2025-09-22 | N/A | N/A | ||
| SCRAM (Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism) is part of the family of Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL, RFC 4422) authentication mechanisms. Prior to version 3.2, a timing attack vulnerability exists in the SCRAM Java implementation. The issue arises because Arrays.equals was used to compare secret values such as client proofs and server signatures. Since Arrays.equals performs a short-circuit comparison, the execution time varies depending on how many leading bytes match. This behavior could allow an attacker to perform a timing side-channel attack and potentially infer sensitive authentication material. All users relying on SCRAM authentication are impacted. This vulnerability has been patched in version 3.1 by replacing Arrays.equals with MessageDigest.isEqual, which ensures constant-time comparison. | |||||
| CVE-2025-59350 | 1 Linuxfoundation | 1 Dragonfly | 2025-09-18 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Dragonfly is an open source P2P-based file distribution and image acceleration system. Prior to 2.1.0, the access control mechanism for the Proxy feature uses simple string comparisons and is therefore vulnerable to timing attacks. An attacker may try to guess the password one character at a time by sending all possible characters to a vulnerable mechanism and measuring the comparison instruction’s execution times. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.1.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-8774 | 1 Boom-core | 1 Risvc-boom | 2025-09-16 | 1.0 LOW | 2.5 LOW |
| A vulnerability has been found in riscv-boom SonicBOOM up to 2.2.3 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component L1 Data Cache Handler. The manipulation leads to observable timing discrepancy. Local access is required to approach this attack. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. | |||||
| CVE-2025-59058 | 2025-09-15 | N/A | 5.9 MEDIUM | ||
| httpsig-rs is a Rust implementation of IETF RFC 9421 http message signatures. Prior to version 0.0.19, the HMAC signature comparison is not timing-safe. This makes anyone who uses HS256 signature verification vulnerable to a timing attack that allows the attacker to forge a signature. Version 0.0.19 fixes the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2025-7383 | 2025-08-29 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Padding oracle attack vulnerability in Oberon microsystem AG’s Oberon PSA Crypto library in all versions since 1.0.0 and prior to 1.5.1 allows an attacker to recover plaintexts via timing measurements of AES-CBC PKCS#7 decrypt operations. | |||||
| CVE-2025-7071 | 2025-08-29 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Padding oracle attack vulnerability in Oberon microsystem AG’s ocrypto library in all versions since 3.1.0 and prior to 3.9.2 allows an attacker to recover plaintexts via timing measurements of AES-CBC PKCS#7 decrypt operations. | |||||
| CVE-2024-23342 | 1 Tlsfuzzer | 1 Ecdsa | 2025-08-26 | N/A | 7.4 HIGH |
| The `ecdsa` PyPI package is a pure Python implementation of ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography) with support for ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm), EdDSA (Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm) and ECDH (Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman). Versions 0.18.0 and prior are vulnerable to the Minerva attack. As of time of publication, no known patched version exists. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43754 | 2025-08-22 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Username enumeration vulnerability in Liferay Portal 7.4.0 through 7.4.3.132, and Liferay DXP 2024.Q4.0 through 2024.Q4.7, 2024.Q3.0 through 2024.Q3.13, 2024.Q2.0 through 2024.Q2.13, 2024.Q1.1 through 2024.Q1.14 and 7.4 GA through update 92 allows attackers to determine if an account exist in the application by inspecting the server processing time of the login request. | |||||
| CVE-2024-52307 | 1 Goauthentik | 1 Authentik | 2025-08-21 | N/A | 5.6 MEDIUM |
| authentik is an open-source identity provider. Due to the usage of a non-constant time comparison for the /-/metrics/ endpoint it was possible to brute-force the SECRET_KEY, which is used to authenticate the endpoint. The /-/metrics/ endpoint returns Prometheus metrics and is not intended to be accessed directly, as the Go proxy running in the authentik server container fetches data from this endpoint and serves it on a separate port (9300 by default), which can be scraped by Prometheus without being exposed publicly. authentik 2024.8.5 and 2024.10.3 fix this issue. Since the /-/metrics/ endpoint is not intended to be accessed publicly, requests to the endpoint can be blocked by the reverse proxy/load balancer used in conjunction with authentik. | |||||
| CVE-2024-36405 | 1 Openquantumsafe | 1 Liboqs | 2025-08-20 | N/A | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| liboqs is a C-language cryptographic library that provides implementations of post-quantum cryptography algorithms. A control-flow timing lean has been identified in the reference implementation of the Kyber key encapsulation mechanism when it is compiled with Clang 15-18 for `-Os`, `-O1`, and other compilation options. A proof-of-concept local attack on the reference implementation leaks the entire ML-KEM 512 secret key in ~10 minutes using end-to-end decapsulation timing measurements. The issue has been fixed in version 0.10.1. As a possible workaround, some compiler options may produce vectorized code that does not leak secret information, however relying on these compiler options as a workaround may not be reliable. | |||||
| CVE-2025-20067 | 2025-08-13 | N/A | 6.0 MEDIUM | ||
| Observable timing discrepancy in firmware for some Intel(R) CSME and Intel(R) SPS may allow a privileged user to potentially enable information disclosure via local access. | |||||
| CVE-2021-42016 | 1 Siemens | 54 Ruggedcom I800, Ruggedcom I801, Ruggedcom I802 and 51 more | 2025-08-12 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM i800, RUGGEDCOM i801, RUGGEDCOM i802, RUGGEDCOM i803, RUGGEDCOM M2100, RUGGEDCOM M2100F, RUGGEDCOM M2200, RUGGEDCOM M2200F, RUGGEDCOM M969, RUGGEDCOM M969F, RUGGEDCOM RMC30, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RP110, RUGGEDCOM RS1600, RUGGEDCOM RS1600F, RUGGEDCOM RS1600T, RUGGEDCOM RS400, RUGGEDCOM RS400F, RUGGEDCOM RS401, RUGGEDCOM RS416, RUGGEDCOM RS416F, RUGGEDCOM RS416P, RUGGEDCOM RS416PF, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS8000, RUGGEDCOM RS8000A, RUGGEDCOM RS8000H, RUGGEDCOM RS8000T, RUGGEDCOM RS900, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900F, RUGGEDCOM RS900G, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RS900GF, RUGGEDCOM RS900GP, RUGGEDCOM RS900GPF, RUGGEDCOM RS900L, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-GETS-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-C01, RUGGEDCOM RS900M-STND-XX, RUGGEDCOM RS900W, RUGGEDCOM RS910, RUGGEDCOM RS910L, RUGGEDCOM RS910W, RUGGEDCOM RS920L, RUGGEDCOM RS920W, RUGGEDCOM RS930L, RUGGEDCOM RS930W, RUGGEDCOM RS940G, RUGGEDCOM RS940GF, RUGGEDCOM RS969, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2100PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200, RUGGEDCOM RSG2200F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300F, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2300PF, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG2488F, RUGGEDCOM RSG907R, RUGGEDCOM RSG908C, RUGGEDCOM RSG909R, RUGGEDCOM RSG910C, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V4.X, RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X, RUGGEDCOM RSL910, RUGGEDCOM RST2228, RUGGEDCOM RST2228P, RUGGEDCOM RST916C, RUGGEDCOM RST916P. A timing attack, in a third-party component, could make the retrieval of the private key possible, used for encryption of sensitive data. If a threat actor were to exploit this, the data integrity and security could be compromised. | |||||