rpm package
almalinux/go-fdo-client
pkg:rpm/almalinux/go-fdo-client
Vulnerabilities (6)
| CVE | Sev | CVSS | KEV | Affected versions | Fixed in | Published | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-27145 | Med | 6.5 | < 1.0.0-4.el10_2.5 | 1.0.0-4.el10_2.5 | Jun 2, 2026 | (*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, ".") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratic | |
| CVE-2026-32283 | Hig | 7.5 | < 1.0.0-3.el10_2 | 1.0.0-3.el10_2 | Apr 8, 2026 | If one side of the TLS connection sends multiple key update messages post-handshake in a single record, the connection can deadlock, causing uncontrolled consumption of resources. This can lead to a denial of service. This only affects TLS 1.3. | |
| CVE-2026-32282 | Med | 6.4 | < 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | Apr 8, 2026 | On Linux, if the target of Root.Chmod is replaced with a symlink while the chmod operation is in progress, Chmod can operate on the target of the symlink, even when the target lies outside the root. The Linux fchmodat syscall silently ignores the AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag, which R | |
| CVE-2026-32281 | Hig | 7.5 | < 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | Apr 8, 2026 | Validating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root C | |
| CVE-2026-32280 | Hig | 7.5 | < 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | Apr 8, 2026 | During chain building, the amount of work that is done is not correctly limited when a large number of intermediate certificates are passed in VerifyOptions.Intermediates, which can lead to a denial of service. This affects both direct users of crypto/x509 and users of crypto/tls | |
| CVE-2025-68121 | Cri | 10.0 | < 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | 1.0.0-4.el10_2 | Feb 5, 2026 | During session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the resumed handshake, the resumed handshake may succeed when it should have failed. This may happen when a user calls Config.Clone and |
- affected < 1.0.0-4.el10_2.5fixed 1.0.0-4.el10_2.5
(*x509.Certificate).VerifyHostname previously called matchHostnames in a loop over all DNS Subject Alternative Name (SAN) entries. This caused strings.Split(host, ".") to execute repeatedly on the same input hostname. With a large DNS SAN list, verification costs scaled quadratic
- affected < 1.0.0-3.el10_2fixed 1.0.0-3.el10_2
If one side of the TLS connection sends multiple key update messages post-handshake in a single record, the connection can deadlock, causing uncontrolled consumption of resources. This can lead to a denial of service. This only affects TLS 1.3.
- affected < 1.0.0-4.el10_2fixed 1.0.0-4.el10_2
On Linux, if the target of Root.Chmod is replaced with a symlink while the chmod operation is in progress, Chmod can operate on the target of the symlink, even when the target lies outside the root. The Linux fchmodat syscall silently ignores the AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag, which R
- affected < 1.0.0-4.el10_2fixed 1.0.0-4.el10_2
Validating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root C
- affected < 1.0.0-4.el10_2fixed 1.0.0-4.el10_2
During chain building, the amount of work that is done is not correctly limited when a large number of intermediate certificates are passed in VerifyOptions.Intermediates, which can lead to a denial of service. This affects both direct users of crypto/x509 and users of crypto/tls
- affected < 1.0.0-4.el10_2fixed 1.0.0-4.el10_2
During session resumption in crypto/tls, if the underlying Config has its ClientCAs or RootCAs fields mutated between the initial handshake and the resumed handshake, the resumed handshake may succeed when it should have failed. This may happen when a user calls Config.Clone and