This project might be open to known security vulnerabilities, which can be prevented by tightening the version range of affected dependencies. Find detailed information at the bottom.
rustls(12 total, 2 outdated, 3 possibly insecure)
| Crate | Required | Latest | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| aws-lc-rs | ^1.12 | 1.16.2 | up to date |
| brotli | ^8 | 8.0.2 | up to date |
| brotli-decompressor | ^5.0.0 | 5.0.0 | up to date |
| hashbrown ⚠️ | ^0.15 | 0.16.1 | out of date |
| log | ^0.4.8 | 0.4.29 | up to date |
| once_cell | ^1.16 | 1.21.4 | up to date |
| rustls-pki-types | ^1.11 | 1.14.0 | up to date |
| ring ⚠️ | ^0.17 | 0.17.14 | maybe insecure |
| subtle | ^2.5.0 | 2.6.1 | up to date |
| rustls-webpki ⚠️ | ^0.103.2 | 0.103.10 | maybe insecure |
| zeroize | ^1.7 | 1.8.2 | up to date |
| zlib-rs | ^0.5 | 0.6.3 | out of date |
(13 total, 3 outdated, 1 possibly insecure)
| Crate | Required | Latest | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| base64 | ^0.22 | 0.22.1 | up to date |
| bencher | ^0.1.5 | 0.1.5 | up to date |
| env_logger | ^0.11 | 0.11.10 | up to date |
| hex | ^0.4 | 0.4.3 | up to date |
| log | ^0.4.8 | 0.4.29 | up to date |
| macro_rules_attribute | ^0.2 | 0.2.2 | up to date |
| num-bigint | ^0.4.4 | 0.4.6 | up to date |
| rcgen | ^0.13 | 0.14.7 | out of date |
| serde | ^1 | 1.0.228 | up to date |
| serde_json | ^1 | 1.0.149 | up to date |
| time ⚠️ | ^0.3.6 | 0.3.47 | maybe insecure |
| webpki-roots | ^0.26 | 1.0.6 | out of date |
| x509-parser | ^0.17 | 0.18.1 | out of date |
hashbrown: Borsh serialization of HashMap is non-canonicalThe borsh serialization of the HashMap did not follow the borsh specification. It potentially produced non-canonical encodings dependent on insertion order. It also did not perform canonicty checks on decoding.
This can result in consensus splits and cause equivalent objects to be considered distinct.
This was patched in 0.15.1.
ring: Some AES functions may panic when overflow checking is enabled.ring::aead::quic::HeaderProtectionKey::new_mask() may panic when overflow
checking is enabled. In the QUIC protocol, an attacker can induce this panic by
sending a specially-crafted packet. Even unintentionally it is likely to occur
in 1 out of every 2**32 packets sent and/or received.
On 64-bit targets operations using ring::aead::{AES_128_GCM, AES_256_GCM} may
panic when overflow checking is enabled, when encrypting/decrypting approximately
68,719,476,700 bytes (about 64 gigabytes) of data in a single chunk. Protocols
like TLS and SSH are not affected by this because those protocols break large
amounts of data into small chunks. Similarly, most applications will not
attempt to encrypt/decrypt 64GB of data in one chunk.
Overflow checking is not enabled in release mode by default, but
RUSTFLAGS="-C overflow-checks" or overflow-checks = true in the Cargo.toml
profile can override this. Overflow checking is usually enabled by default in
debug mode.
time: Denial of Service via Stack ExhaustionWhen user-provided input is provided to any type that parses with the RFC 2822 format, a denial of service attack via stack exhaustion is possible. The attack relies on formally deprecated and rarely-used features that are part of the RFC 2822 format used in a malicious manner. Ordinary, non-malicious input will never encounter this scenario.
A limit to the depth of recursion was added in v0.3.47. From this version, an error will be returned rather than exhausting the stack.
Limiting the length of user input is the simplest way to avoid stack exhaustion, as the amount of the stack consumed would be at most a factor of the length of the input.
rustls-webpki: CRLs not considered authoritative by Distribution Point due to faulty matching logicIf a certificate had more than one distributionPoint, then only the first distributionPoint would be considered against each CRL's IssuingDistributionPoint distributionPoint, and then the certificate's subsequent distributionPoints would be ignored.
The impact was that correctly provided CRLs would not be consulted to check revocation. With UnknownStatusPolicy::Deny (the default) this would lead to incorrect but safe Error::UnknownRevocationStatus. With UnknownStatusPolicy::Allow this would lead to inappropriate acceptance of revoked certificates.
This vulnerability is thought to be of limited impact. This is because both the certificate and CRL are signed -- an attacker would need to compromise a trusted issuing authority to trigger this bug. An attacker with such capabilities could likely bypass revocation checking through other more impactful means (such as publishing a valid, empty CRL.)
More likely, this bug would be latent in normal use, and an attacker could leverage faulty revocation checking to continue using a revoked credential.
This vulnerability is identified as GHSA-pwjx-qhcg-rvj4. Thank you to @1seal for the report.