[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f3qANhklTIylOsBajf2LPXpyyKuZ5wGQFRgAVT8F4WgQ":3},{"success":4,"data":5},true,{"vendor":6,"topVulnerabilitiesByEpss":59,"kevVulnerabilities":115,"topProductsByCves":116,"seoMetadata":126,"meta":135},{"vendorId":7,"vendorName":8,"productCount":9,"cveCount":10,"kevCount":11,"versionCount":12,"lastCveUpdate":13,"firstLetter":14,"products":15,"description":58},30474,"stormshield",9,59,0,283,"2025-09-25","s",[16,21,27,33,38,43,47,52,55],{"id":17,"product_name":18,"version_count":19,"cve_count":20,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":13},157544,"stormshield_network_security",163,34,{"id":22,"product_name":23,"version_count":24,"cve_count":25,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":26},157536,"endpoint_security",10,15,"2023-06-27",{"id":28,"product_name":29,"version_count":30,"cve_count":31,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":32},157543,"stormshield_management_center",5,8,"2023-02-08",{"id":34,"product_name":35,"version_count":9,"cve_count":36,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":37},157542,"ssl_vpn_client",3,"2023-08-28",{"id":39,"product_name":40,"version_count":41,"cve_count":36,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":42},157537,"network_security",80,"2022-01-17",{"id":44,"product_name":45,"version_count":46,"cve_count":46,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":32},157541,"sslvpn",1,{"id":48,"product_name":49,"version_count":50,"cve_count":11,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":51},157538,"network_security_310_firmware",6,null,{"id":53,"product_name":54,"version_count":9,"cve_count":11,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":51},157540,"sn310_firmware",{"id":56,"product_name":57,"version_count":11,"cve_count":11,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":51},157539,"sn310","Stormshield is a technology vendor with 9 tracked products and 59 known security vulnerabilities. Get comprehensive security analysis, vulnerability tracking, and threat intelligence for this vendor.",[60,69,75,79,83,90,95,100,105,110],{"cveId":61,"description":62,"publishedDate":63,"cvssScore":64,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":66,"isKev":67,"epssScore":68},"CVE-2022-32214","The llhttp parser \u003Cv14.20.1, \u003Cv16.17.1 and \u003Cv18.9.1 in the http module in Node.js does not strictly use the CRLF sequence to delimit HTTP requests. This can lead to HTTP Request Smuggling (HRS).","2022-07-14",6.5,"v3.1","Medium",false,0.81832,{"cveId":70,"description":71,"publishedDate":32,"cvssScore":72,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":73,"isKev":67,"epssScore":74},"CVE-2023-0286","There is a type confusion vulnerability relating to X.400 address processing\ninside an X.509 GeneralName. X.400 addresses were parsed as an ASN1_STRING but\nthe public structure definition for GENERAL_NAME incorrectly specified the type\nof the x400Address field as ASN1_TYPE. This field is subsequently interpreted by\nthe OpenSSL function GENERAL_NAME_cmp as an ASN1_TYPE rather than an\nASN1_STRING.\n\nWhen CRL checking is enabled (i.e. the application sets the\nX509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK flag), this vulnerability may allow an attacker to pass\narbitrary pointers to a memcmp call, enabling them to read memory contents or\nenact a denial of service. In most cases, the attack requires the attacker to\nprovide both the certificate chain and CRL, neither of which need to have a\nvalid signature. If the attacker only controls one of these inputs, the other\ninput must already contain an X.400 address as a CRL distribution point, which\nis uncommon. As such, this vulnerability is most likely to only affect\napplications which have implemented their own functionality for retrieving CRLs\nover a network.",7.4,"High",0.71239,{"cveId":76,"description":77,"publishedDate":63,"cvssScore":64,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":66,"isKev":67,"epssScore":78},"CVE-2022-32215","The llhttp parser \u003Cv14.20.1, \u003Cv16.17.1 and \u003Cv18.9.1 in the http module in Node.js does not correctly handle multi-line Transfer-Encoding headers. This can lead to HTTP Request Smuggling (HRS).",0.70244,{"cveId":80,"description":81,"publishedDate":63,"cvssScore":64,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":66,"isKev":67,"epssScore":82},"CVE-2022-32213","The llhttp parser \u003Cv14.20.1, \u003Cv16.17.1 and \u003Cv18.9.1 in the http module in Node.js does not correctly parse and validate Transfer-Encoding headers and can lead to HTTP Request Smuggling (HRS).",0.45956,{"cveId":84,"description":85,"publishedDate":86,"cvssScore":87,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":88,"isKev":67,"epssScore":89},"CVE-2023-20032","On Feb 15, 2023, the following vulnerability in the ClamAV scanning library was disclosed:\r\n\r \r A vulnerability in the HFS+ partition file parser of ClamAV versions 1.0.0 and earlier, 0.105.1 and earlier, and 0.103.7 and earlier could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code.\r\n\r \r This vulnerability is due to a missing buffer size check that may result in a heap buffer overflow write. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HFS+ partition file to be scanned by ClamAV on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the ClamAV scanning process, or else crash the process, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition.\r\n\r For a description of this vulnerability, see the ClamAV blog [\"https:\u002F\u002Fblog.clamav.net\u002F\"].","2023-03-01",9.8,"Critical",0.29314,{"cveId":91,"description":92,"publishedDate":32,"cvssScore":93,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":73,"isKev":67,"epssScore":94},"CVE-2022-4450","The function PEM_read_bio_ex() reads a PEM file from a BIO and parses and\ndecodes the \"name\" (e.g. \"CERTIFICATE\"), any header data and the payload data.\nIf the function succeeds then the \"name_out\", \"header\" and \"data\" arguments are\npopulated with pointers to buffers containing the relevant decoded data. The\ncaller is responsible for freeing those buffers. It is possible to construct a\nPEM file that results in 0 bytes of payload data. In this case PEM_read_bio_ex()\nwill return a failure code but will populate the header argument with a pointer\nto a buffer that has already been freed. If the caller also frees this buffer\nthen a double free will occur. This will most likely lead to a crash. This\ncould be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to supply malicious PEM\nfiles for parsing to achieve a denial of service attack.\n\nThe functions PEM_read_bio() and PEM_read() are simple wrappers around\nPEM_read_bio_ex() and therefore these functions are also directly affected.\n\nThese functions are also called indirectly by a number of other OpenSSL\nfunctions including PEM_X509_INFO_read_bio_ex() and\nSSL_CTX_use_serverinfo_file() which are also vulnerable. Some OpenSSL internal\nuses of these functions are not vulnerable because the caller does not free the\nheader argument if PEM_read_bio_ex() returns a failure code. These locations\ninclude the PEM_read_bio_TYPE() functions as well as the decoders introduced in\nOpenSSL 3.0.\n\nThe OpenSSL asn1parse command line application is also impacted by this issue.",7.5,0.2859,{"cveId":96,"description":97,"publishedDate":98,"cvssScore":93,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":73,"isKev":67,"epssScore":99},"CVE-2002-20001","The Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol allows remote attackers (from the client side) to send arbitrary numbers that are actually not public keys, and trigger expensive server-side DHE modular-exponentiation calculations, aka a D(HE)at or D(HE)ater attack. The client needs very little CPU resources and network bandwidth. The attack may be more disruptive in cases where a client can require a server to select its largest supported key size. The basic attack scenario is that the client must claim that it can only communicate with DHE, and the server must be configured to allow DHE.","2021-11-11",0.24639,{"cveId":101,"description":102,"publishedDate":32,"cvssScore":103,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":66,"isKev":67,"epssScore":104},"CVE-2022-4304","A timing based side channel exists in the OpenSSL RSA Decryption implementation\nwhich could be sufficient to recover a plaintext across a network in a\nBleichenbacher style attack. To achieve a successful decryption an attacker\nwould have to be able to send a very large number of trial messages for\ndecryption. The vulnerability affects all RSA padding modes: PKCS#1 v1.5,\nRSA-OEAP and RSASVE.\n\nFor example, in a TLS connection, RSA is commonly used by a client to send an\nencrypted pre-master secret to the server. An attacker that had observed a\ngenuine connection between a client and a server could use this flaw to send\ntrial messages to the server and record the time taken to process them. After a\nsufficiently large number of messages the attacker could recover the pre-master\nsecret used for the original connection and thus be able to decrypt the\napplication data sent over that connection.",5.9,0.23509,{"cveId":106,"description":107,"publishedDate":108,"cvssScore":87,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":88,"isKev":67,"epssScore":109},"CVE-2022-37434","zlib through 1.2.12 has a heap-based buffer over-read or buffer overflow in inflate in inflate.c via a large gzip header extra field. NOTE: only applications that call inflateGetHeader are affected. Some common applications bundle the affected zlib source code but may be unable to call inflateGetHeader (e.g., see the nodejs\u002Fnode reference).","2022-08-05",0.18972,{"cveId":111,"description":112,"publishedDate":86,"cvssScore":113,"cvssVersion":65,"severity":66,"isKev":67,"epssScore":114},"CVE-2023-20052","On Feb 15, 2023, the following vulnerability in the ClamAV scanning library was disclosed:\r\n\r \r A vulnerability in the DMG file parser of ClamAV versions 1.0.0 and earlier, 0.105.1 and earlier, and 0.103.7 and earlier could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to access sensitive information on an affected device.\r\n\r \r This vulnerability is due to enabling XML entity substitution that may result in XML external entity injection. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted DMG file to be scanned by ClamAV on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to leak bytes from any file that may be read by the ClamAV scanning process.",5.3,0.06946,[],[117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125],{"id":17,"product_name":18,"version_count":19,"cve_count":20,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":13},{"id":22,"product_name":23,"version_count":24,"cve_count":25,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":26},{"id":28,"product_name":29,"version_count":30,"cve_count":31,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":32},{"id":34,"product_name":35,"version_count":9,"cve_count":36,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":37},{"id":39,"product_name":40,"version_count":41,"cve_count":36,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":42},{"id":44,"product_name":45,"version_count":46,"cve_count":46,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":32},{"id":48,"product_name":49,"version_count":50,"cve_count":11,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":51},{"id":53,"product_name":54,"version_count":9,"cve_count":11,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":51},{"id":56,"product_name":57,"version_count":11,"cve_count":11,"kev_count":11,"last_cve_update":51},{"title":127,"metaDescription":128,"keywords":129,"structuredData":130},"Stormshield - Security Vulnerabilities & Analysis | Precursor Intelligence","Comprehensive security analysis for Stormshield covering 9 products with 59 tracked vulnerabilities. Real-time threat intelligence, CVE tracking, and security recommendations.","Stormshield vulnerabilities, Stormshield security, Stormshield CVE, Stormshield threat intelligence, vendor security analysis, cybersecurity threats, vulnerability management, CVE tracking",{"@context":131,"@type":132,"name":133,"description":128,"url":134},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","Organization","Stormshield","https:\u002F\u002Fprecursorintelligence.com\u002Fvendors\u002Fstormshield",{"totalProducts":9,"totalVulnerabilities":10,"kevVulnerabilities":11,"lastUpdated":13,"generatedAt":136,"apiVersion":137},"2026-10-17T13:25:45.652Z","3.0"]