Vulnerabilities > F5 > BIG IP Protocol Security Module > Medium
| DATE | CVE | VULNERABILITY TITLE | RISK |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-21 | CVE-2013-3587 | Information Exposure vulnerability in F5 products The HTTPS protocol, as used in unspecified web applications, can encrypt compressed data without properly obfuscating the length of the unencrypted data, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain plaintext secret values by observing length differences during a series of guesses in which a string in an HTTP request URL potentially matches an unknown string in an HTTP response body, aka a "BREACH" attack, a different issue than CVE-2012-4929. | 5.9 |
| 2020-01-08 | CVE-2014-5209 | Information Exposure vulnerability in multiple products An Information Disclosure vulnerability exists in NTP 4.2.7p25 private (mode 6/7) messages via a GET_RESTRICT control message, which could let a malicious user obtain sensitive information. | 5.3 |
| 2019-03-28 | CVE-2019-6608 | Memory Leak vulnerability in F5 products On BIG-IP 11.5.1-11.6.3, 12.1.0-12.1.3, 13.0.0-13.1.1.1, and 14.0.0-14.0.0.2, under certain conditions, the snmpd daemon may leak memory on a multi-blade BIG-IP vCMP guest when processing authorized SNMP requests. | 5.9 |
| 2019-03-28 | CVE-2019-6604 | Unspecified vulnerability in F5 products On BIG-IP 11.5.1-11.5.8, 11.6.1-11.6.3, 12.1.0-12.1.3.6, 13.0.0-13.1.1.1, and 14.0.0-14.0.0.2, under certain conditions, hardware systems with a High-Speed Bridge and using non-default Layer 2 forwarding configurations may experience a lockup of the High-Speed Bridge. | 6.8 |
| 2018-10-31 | CVE-2018-15325 | Resource Exhaustion vulnerability in F5 products In BIG-IP 14.0.0-14.0.0.2 or 13.0.0-13.1.1.1, iControl and TMSH usage by authenticated users may leak a small amount of memory when executing commands | 4.3 |
| 2018-10-31 | CVE-2018-15323 | Improper Input Validation vulnerability in F5 products On BIG-IP 14.0.0-14.0.0.2 or 13.0.0-13.1.1.1, in certain circumstances, when processing traffic through a Virtual Server with an associated MQTT profile, the TMM process may produce a core file and take the configured HA action. | 5.9 |
| 2018-10-31 | CVE-2018-15322 | Unspecified vulnerability in F5 products On BIG-IP 14.0.0-14.0.0.2, 13.0.0-13.1.0.7, 12.1.0-12.1.3.5, 11.6.0-11.6.3.2, or 11.2.1-11.5.6, BIG-IQ Centralized Management 6.0.0-6.0.1, 5.0.0-5.4.0 or 4.6.0, BIG-IQ Cloud and Orchestration 1.0.0, iWorkflow 2.0.1-2.3.0, or Enterprise Manager 3.1.1 a BIG-IP user granted with tmsh access may cause the BIG-IP system to experience denial-of-service (DoS) when the BIG-IP user uses the tmsh utility to run the edit cli preference command and proceeds to save the changes to another filename repeatedly. | 6.5 |
| 2018-10-31 | CVE-2018-15321 | Improper Privilege Management vulnerability in F5 products When BIG-IP 14.0.0-14.0.0.2, 13.0.0-13.1.0.5, 12.1.0-12.1.3.5, 11.6.0-11.6.3.2, or 11.2.1-11.5.6, BIG-IQ Centralized Management 5.0.0-5.4.0 or 4.6.0, BIG-IQ Cloud and Orchestration 1.0.0, iWorkflow 2.1.0-2.3.0, or Enterprise Manager 3.1.1 is licensed for Appliance Mode, Admin and Resource administrator roles can by-pass BIG-IP Appliance Mode restrictions to overwrite critical system files. | 4.9 |
| 2018-03-19 | CVE-2014-4024 | Information Exposure vulnerability in F5 products SSL virtual servers in F5 BIG-IP systems 10.x before 10.2.4 HF9, 11.x before 11.2.1 HF12, 11.3.0 before HF10, 11.4.0 before HF8, 11.4.1 before HF5, 11.5.0 before HF5, and 11.5.1 before HF5, when used with third-party Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) accelerator cards, might allow remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a timing side-channel attack. | 5.9 |
| 2017-10-27 | CVE-2017-6163 | Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerability in F5 products In F5 BIG-IP LTM, AAM, AFM, APM, ASM, Link Controller, PEM, PSM software version 12.0.0 to 12.1.2, 11.6.0 to 11.6.1, 11.4.0 to 11.5.4, when a virtual server uses the standard configuration of HTTP/2 or SPDY profile with Client SSL profile, and the client initiates a number of concurrent streams beyond the advertised limit can cause a disruption of service. | 5.9 |