Search
Search Results (44 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2004-0469 | 1 Checkpoint | 4 Firewall-1, Next Generation, Ng-ai and 1 more | 2026-04-16 | N/A |
| Buffer overflow in the ISAKMP functionality for Check Point VPN-1 and FireWall-1 NG products, before VPN-1/FireWall-1 R55 HFA-03, R54 HFA-410 and NG FP3 HFA-325, or VPN-1 SecuRemote/SecureClient R56, may allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code during VPN tunnel negotiation. | ||||
| CVE-2004-0699 | 1 Checkpoint | 2 Firewall-1, Vpn-1 | 2026-04-16 | N/A |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in ASN.1 decoding library in Check Point VPN-1 products, when Aggressive Mode IKE is implemented, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by initiating an IKE negotiation and then sending an IKE packet with malformed ASN.1 data. | ||||
| CVE-2005-3673 | 1 Checkpoint | 5 Check Point, Express, Firewall-1 and 2 more | 2026-04-16 | N/A |
| The Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1) implementation in Check Point products allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via certain crafted IKE packets, as demonstrated by the PROTOS ISAKMP Test Suite for IKEv1. NOTE: due to the lack of details in the advisory, it is unclear which of CVE-2005-3666, CVE-2005-3667, and/or CVE-2005-3668 this issue applies to. | ||||
| CVE-2009-1227 | 1 Checkpoint | 1 Firewall-1 Pki Web Service | 2025-04-09 | N/A |
| NOTE: this issue has been disputed by the vendor. Buffer overflow in the PKI Web Service in Check Point Firewall-1 PKI Web Service allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long (1) Authorization or (2) Referer HTTP header to TCP port 18624. NOTE: the vendor has disputed this issue, stating "Check Point Security Alert Team has analyzed this report. We've tried to reproduce the attack on all VPN-1 versions from NG FP2 and above with and without HFAs. The issue was not reproduced. We have conducted a thorough analysis of the relevant code and verified that we are secure against this attack. We consider this attack to pose no risk to Check Point customers." In addition, the original researcher, whose reliability is unknown as of 20090407, also states that the issue "was discovered during a pen-test where the client would not allow further analysis. | ||||