A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco IP Phone 6800, 7800, and 8800 Series with Multiplatform Firmware could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack against a user of the web-based interface of an affected system. This vulnerability is due to insufficient CSRF protections for the web-based management interface of an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading an authenticated user of the interface to follow a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to perform configuration changes on the affected device, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition.
A vulnerability in the information storage architecture of several Cisco IP Phone models could allow an unauthenticated, physical attacker to obtain confidential information from an affected device. This vulnerability is due to unencrypted storage of confidential information on an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by physically extracting and accessing one of the flash memory chips. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to obtain confidential information from the device, which could be used for subsequent attacks.
A vulnerability in the debug shell of Cisco IP Phone software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to read any file on the device file system. This vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing crafted input to a debug shell command. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to read any file on the device file system.
The TrustZone implementation in certain Broadcom MediaxChange firmware could allow an unauthenticated, physically proximate attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution in the TrustZone Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) of an affected device. This, for example, affects certain Cisco IP Phone and Wireless IP Phone products before 2021-07-07. Exploitation is possible only when the attacker can disassemble the device in order to control the voltage/current for chip pins.
The 802.11 standard that underpins Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, and WPA3) and Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) doesn't require that all fragments of a frame are encrypted under the same key. An adversary can abuse this to decrypt selected fragments when another device sends fragmented frames and the WEP, CCMP, or GCMP encryption key is periodically renewed.
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.
An issue was discovered in the kernel in NetBSD 7.1. An Access Point (AP) forwards EAPOL frames to other clients even though the sender has not yet successfully authenticated to the AP. This might be abused in projected Wi-Fi networks to launch denial-of-service attacks against connected clients and makes it easier to exploit other vulnerabilities in connected clients.
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.
An issue was discovered in the ALFA Windows 10 driver 6.1316.1209 for AWUS036H. The Wi-Fi implementation does not verify the Message Integrity Check (authenticity) of fragmented TKIP frames. An adversary can abuse this to inject and possibly decrypt packets in WPA or WPA2 networks that support the TKIP data-confidentiality protocol.
A vulnerability in the TCP packet processing functionality of Cisco IP Phones could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause the phone to stop responding to incoming calls, drop connected calls, or unexpectedly reload. The vulnerability is due to insufficient TCP ingress packet rate limiting. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a high and sustained rate of crafted TCP traffic to the targeted device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to impact operations of the phone or cause the phone to reload, leading to a denial of service (DoS) condition.