{"id":2408,"date":"2007-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-17T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2007\/05\/17\/traffic-scanning-flaw-hits-90-vendors\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:41:17","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:41:17","slug":"traffic-scanning-flaw-hits-90-vendors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2007\/05\/17\/traffic-scanning-flaw-hits-90-vendors\/","title":{"rendered":"Traffic-Scanning Flaw Hits 90+ Vendors"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>It&#8217;s not every day that US-CERT warns of a flaw that is potentially so widespread that it could affect more than 90 vendors covering a huge swath of the IT industry.  US-CERT&#8217;s HTTP content scanning systems full-width\/half-width Unicode encoding bypass flaw could potentially be one of the most widespread networking security flaws discovered in years.   If exploited, a malicious user could use the bypass to attack a vulnerable environment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An attacker could send a malicious HTTP packet to the vulnerable content scanning system <\/p>\n<p>Cisco has confirmed that its Cisco Intrusion Prevention System and Cisco IOS with Firewall\/IPS Feature Set products are vulnerable to the flaw.  Cisco notes in its advisory that it is not aware of any malicious use of the vulnerability.  Among those US-CERT lists include: 3com, Alcatel, Avaya, D-Link Systems, Debian GNU\/Linux, EMC, Fedora Project, Gentoo Linux, Hitachi, IBM, Intel, Linksys (a division of Cisco), Lucent, McAfee, Microsoft, Nokia, Nortel, Novell, Red Hat, Sony, Sun and Symantec. <\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.internetnews.com\/security\/article.php\/3678051<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-warnings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2408"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2408\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4895,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2408\/revisions\/4895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}