The Birthday attack against 64-bit block ciphers flaw (CVE-2016-2183) was reported for the health checks port (9979) on etcd grpc-proxy component. Even though the CVE-2016-2183 has been fixed in the etcd components, to enable periodic health checks from kubelet, it was necessary to open up a new port (9979) on etcd grpc-proxy, hence this port might be considered as still vulnerable to the same type of vulnerability. The health checks on etcd grpc-proxy do not contain sensitive data (only metrics data), therefore the potential impact related to this vulnerability is minimal. The CVE-2023-0296 has been assigned to this issue to track the permanent fix in the etcd component.
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Openshift | Redhat | 4.11 (including) | 4.11 (including) |
Cryptographic algorithms are the methods by which data is scrambled to prevent observation or influence by unauthorized actors. Insecure cryptography can be exploited to expose sensitive information, modify data in unexpected ways, spoof identities of other users or devices, or other impacts. It is very difficult to produce a secure algorithm, and even high-profile algorithms by accomplished cryptographic experts have been broken. Well-known techniques exist to break or weaken various kinds of cryptography. Accordingly, there are a small number of well-understood and heavily studied algorithms that should be used by most products. Using a non-standard or known-insecure algorithm is dangerous because a determined adversary may be able to break the algorithm and compromise whatever data has been protected. Since the state of cryptography advances so rapidly, it is common for an algorithm to be considered “unsafe” even if it was once thought to be strong. This can happen when new attacks are discovered, or if computing power increases so much that the cryptographic algorithm no longer provides the amount of protection that was originally thought. For a number of reasons, this weakness is even more challenging to manage with hardware deployment of cryptographic algorithms as opposed to software implementation. First, if a flaw is discovered with hardware-implemented cryptography, the flaw cannot be fixed in most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary’s computing power will only increase over time.