This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same for the same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same forthe same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending largenumber of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
This patch defeats Bleichenbacher by not trying to hide the size of thedecrypted text, but to hide if the text succeeded for failed. This is doneby generating a fake returned text that s based on the key and the cipher text,so the fake data is always the same forthe same key and cipher text. Both thelength and the plain text are generated with a prf.References:https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/fc05574c739947d615ab0b2b2b564f01c922eccd
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending largenumber of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
The NSS code used for checking PKCS#1 v1.5 was leaking information useful in mounting Bleichenbacher-like attacks. Both the overall correctness of the padding as well as the length of the encrypted message was leaking through timing side-channel. By sending large number of attacker-selected ciphertexts, the attacker would be able to decrypt a previously intercepted PKCS#1 v1.5 ciphertext (for example, to decrypt a TLS session that used RSA key exchange), or forge a signature using the victim s key. The issue was fixed by implementing the implicit rejection algorithm, in which the NSS returns a deterministic random message in case invalid padding is detected, as proposed in the Marvin Attack paper. This vulnerability affects NSS < 3.61.
