CVE-2020-3299 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2020-3299
Vulnerability Scoring

5.8
/10
Significant Risk

Security assessments indicate that CVE-2020-3299 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: Low
    Exploits can be performed without significant complexity or special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: None
    No privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Changed
    Successful exploitation can impact components beyond the vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2020-3299 Details

Status: Modified

Last updated: 🕡 22 May 2023, 18:57 UTC
Originally published on: 🕖 21 Oct 2020, 19:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 942 days

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

nvd@nist.gov

CVSS3 Type

Primary

CVSS3 Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

CVE-2020-3299 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2020-3299: Multiple Cisco products are affected by a vulnerability in the Snort detection engine that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass a configured File Policy for HTTP. The vulnerability is due to incorrect detection of modified HTTP packets used in chunked responses. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted HTTP packets through an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to bypass a configured File Policy for HTTP packets and deliver a malicious payload.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2020-3299

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2020-3299 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2020-3299

With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2020-3299 is an easy target for cybercriminals. Organizations should prioritize immediate mitigation measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2020-3299, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2020-3299, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2020-3299 has no significant impact on data confidentiality.
  • Integrity: Low
    Exploiting CVE-2020-3299 may cause minor changes to data without severely impacting its accuracy.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2020-3299 does not impact system availability.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.

EPSS Score: 0.101% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 43.64% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 56.36% of others.

CVE-2020-3299 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-693

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs CAPEC-1 In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
  • Cross Site Tracing CAPEC-107 Cross Site Tracing (XST) enables an adversary to steal the victim's session cookie and possibly other authentication credentials transmitted in the header of the HTTP request when the victim's browser communicates to a destination system's web server.
  • Directory Indexing CAPEC-127 An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
  • Using Malicious Files CAPEC-17 An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Encryption Brute Forcing CAPEC-20 An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
  • Exploiting Trust in Client CAPEC-22 An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack.
  • Escaping a Sandbox by Calling Code in Another Language CAPEC-237 The attacker may submit malicious code of another language to obtain access to privileges that were not intentionally exposed by the sandbox, thus escaping the sandbox. For instance, Java code cannot perform unsafe operations, such as modifying arbitrary memory locations, due to restrictions placed on it by the Byte code Verifier and the JVM. If allowed, Java code can call directly into native C code, which may perform unsafe operations, such as call system calls and modify arbitrary memory locations on their behalf. To provide isolation, Java does not grant untrusted code with unmediated access to native C code. Instead, the sandboxed code is typically allowed to call some subset of the pre-existing native code that is part of standard libraries.
  • Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality CAPEC-36 An adversary searches for and invokes interfaces or functionality that the target system designers did not intend to be publicly available. If interfaces fail to authenticate requests, the attacker may be able to invoke functionality they are not authorized for.
  • Signature Spoofing by Mixing Signed and Unsigned Content CAPEC-477 An attacker exploits the underlying complexity of a data structure that allows for both signed and unsigned content, to cause unsigned data to be processed as though it were signed data.
  • Escaping Virtualization CAPEC-480 An adversary gains access to an application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by escaping the confines of a virtualized environment. The adversary is then able to access resources or execute unauthorized code within the host environment, generally with the privileges of the user running the virtualized process. Successfully executing an attack of this type is often the first step in executing more complex attacks.
  • Poison Web Service Registry CAPEC-51 SOA and Web Services often use a registry to perform look up, get schema information, and metadata about services. A poisoned registry can redirect (think phishing for servers) the service requester to a malicious service provider, provide incorrect information in schema or metadata, and delete information about service provider interfaces.
  • Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data CAPEC-57 This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated.
  • Session Credential Falsification through Prediction CAPEC-59 This attack targets predictable session ID in order to gain privileges. The attacker can predict the session ID used during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking.
  • Sniff Application Code CAPEC-65 An adversary passively sniffs network communications and captures application code bound for an authorized client. Once obtained, they can use it as-is, or through reverse-engineering glean sensitive information or exploit the trust relationship between the client and server. Such code may belong to a dynamic update to the client, a patch being applied to a client component or any such interaction where the client is authorized to communicate with the server.
  • Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB) CAPEC-668 An adversary can exploit a flaw in Bluetooth key negotiation allowing them to decrypt information sent between two devices communicating via Bluetooth. The adversary uses an Adversary in the Middle setup to modify packets sent between the two devices during the authentication process, specifically the entropy bits. Knowledge of the number of entropy bits will allow the attacker to easily decrypt information passing over the line of communication.
  • Manipulating State CAPEC-74 The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner. State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits. If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data.
  • Forceful Browsing CAPEC-87 An attacker employs forceful browsing (direct URL entry) to access portions of a website that are otherwise unreachable. Usually, a front controller or similar design pattern is employed to protect access to portions of a web application. Forceful browsing enables an attacker to access information, perform privileged operations and otherwise reach sections of the web application that have been improperly protected.

Vulnerable Configurations

  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.0.1.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.1.0.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.0.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.2.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.8:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.8:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.9:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.9:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.10:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.10:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.11:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.11:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.12:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.12:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.14:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.14:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.15:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.15:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.16:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.16:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.17:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.17:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.18:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.2.3.18:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:firepower_threat_defense:6.3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:cloud_services_router_1000v:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:cloud_services_router_1000v:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:cisco:isrv:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:cisco:isrv:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1100-4p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1100-4p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1100-8p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1100-8p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1101-4p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1101-4p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1109-2p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1109-2p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1109-4p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1109-4p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1111x-8p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:1111x-8p:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4221_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4221_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4331_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4331_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4431_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4431_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4461_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:4461_integrated_services_router:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:isa_3000:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:isa_3000:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:h:cisco:meraki_mx:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:h:cisco:meraki_mx:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.4:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.5:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.6:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.8.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.9.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:1.9.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.0:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.0:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.0:beta:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.0:beta:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.6.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.9.11.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.9.11.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.9.12.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.9.12.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.9.13.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:snort:snort:2.9.13.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2020-3299: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-3284 – The User Registration & Membership – Custom Registration Form, Login Form, and User Profile plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Reques...
  • CVE-2025-3278 – The UrbanGo Membership plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to privilege escalation in versions up to, and including, 1.0.4. This is due to the plugi...
  • CVE-2025-2010 – The JobWP – Job Board, Job Listing, Career Page and Recruitment Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to SQL Injection via the 'jobwp_upload_re...
  • CVE-2025-43903 – NSSCryptoSignBackend.cc in Poppler before 25.04.0 does not verify the adbe.pkcs7.sha1 signatures on documents, resulting in potential signature forgeries.
  • CVE-2025-3796 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in PHPGurukul Men Salon Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /admi...