The TLS protocol 1.2 and earlier supports the rsa_fixed_dh, dss_fixed_dh, rsa_fixed_ecdh, and ecdsa_fixed_ecdh values for ClientCertificateType but does not directly document the ability to compute the master secret in certain situations with a client secret key and server public key but not a server secret key, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof TLS servers by leveraging knowledge of the secret key for an arbitrary installed client X.509 certificate, aka the "Key Compromise Impersonation (KCI)" issue.

An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.

The Internet Key Exchange v1 main mode is vulnerable to offline dictionary or brute force attacks. Reusing a key pair across different versions and modes of IKE could lead to cross-protocol authentication bypasses. It is well known, that the aggressive mode of IKEv1 PSK is vulnerable to offline dictionary or brute force attacks. For the main mode, however, only an online attack against PSK authentication was thought to be feasible. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to recover a weak Pre-Shared Key or enable the impersonation of a victim host or network.

Bleichenbacher's attack on PKCS #1 v1.5 padding for RSA in STM32 cryptographic firmware library software expansion for STM32Cube (UM1924). The vulnerability can allow one to use Bleichenbacher's oracle attack to decrypt an encrypted ciphertext by making successive queries to the server using the vulnerable library, resulting in remote information disclosure.

Bleichenbacher's attack on PKCS #1 v1.5 padding for RSA in Microchip Libraries for Applications 2018-11-26 All up to 2018-11-26. The vulnerability can allow one to use Bleichenbacher's oracle attack to decrypt an encrypted ciphertext by making successive queries to the server using the vulnerable library, resulting in remote information disclosure.

Layer 2 network filtering capabilities such as IPv6 RA guard or ARP inspection can be bypassed using combinations of VLAN 0 headers and LLC/SNAP headers.

Layer 2 network filtering capabilities such as IPv6 RA guard can be bypassed using combinations of VLAN 0 headers, LLC/SNAP headers, and converting frames from Ethernet to Wifi and its reverse.

Layer 2 network filtering capabilities such as IPv6 RA guard can be bypassed using LLC/SNAP headers with invalid length (and optionally VLAN0 headers)

Layer 2 network filtering capabilities such as IPv6 RA guard can be bypassed using LLC/SNAP headers with invalid length and Ethernet to Wifi frame conversion (and optionally VLAN0 headers).

The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.

GRE and GRE6 Protocols (RFC2784) do not validate or verify the source of a network packet allowing an attacker to spoof and route arbitrary traffic via an exposed network interface that can lead to spoofing, access control bypass, and other unexpected network behaviors. This can be considered similar to CVE-2020-10136.

Proposed Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) (IETF Draft) do not validate or verify the source of a network packet allowing an attacker to spoof and route arbitrary traffic via an exposed network interface that can lead to spoofing, access control bypass, and other unexpected network behaviors. This can be considered similar to CVE-2020-10136.

IPv4-in-IPv6 and IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling (RFC 2473) do not require the validation or verification of the source of a network packet, allowing an attacker to spoof and route arbitrary traffic via an exposed network interface. This is a similar issue to CVE-2020-10136.

IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling (RFC 4213) allows an attacker to spoof and route traffic via an exposed network interface.