At least one of the NFS shares exported by the remote server could be mounted by the scanning host. An attacker may be able to leverage this to read (and possibly write) files on remote host. Note: Shares protected by an ACL that includes the IP of the Nessus host will not be tested.

At least one of the NFS shares exported by the remote server could be mounted by the scanning host. An attacker may be able to leverage this to read (and possibly write) files on remote host. Note: Shares protected by an ACL that includes the IP of the Nessus host will not be tested.

At least one of the NFS shares exported by the remote server could be mounted by the scanning host. An attacker may be able to leverage this to read (and possibly write) files on remote host. Note: Shares protected by an ACL that includes the IP of the Nessus host will not be tested.

Nessus was either able to mount some of the NFS shares exported by the remote server or disclose potentially sensitive information such as a directory listing. An attacker may exploit this issue to gain read and possibly write access to files on remote host. Note that root privileges were not required to mount the remote shares since the source port to mount the shares was higher than 1024.

The remote NFS server is exporting one or more shares without restricting access (based on hostname, IP, or IP range).

The remote host has one or more Windows shares that can be accessed through the network with the given credentials. Depending on the share rights, it may allow an attacker to read/write confidential data.

The remote host has one or more Windows shares that can be accessed through the network with the given credentials. Depending on the share rights, it may allow an attacker to read/write confidential data.

The remote host supports the use of SSL ciphers that offer medium strength encryption. Nessus regards medium strength as any encryption that uses key lengths at least 64 bits and less than 112 bits, or else that uses the 3DES encryption suite. Note that it is considerably easier to circumvent medium strength encryption if the attacker is on the same physical network.

The remote host supports the use of SSL ciphers that offer medium strength encryption. Nessus regards medium strength as any encryption that uses key lengths at least 64 bits and less than 112 bits, or else that uses the 3DES encryption suite. Note that it is considerably easier to circumvent medium strength encryption if the attacker is on the same physical network.

The remote service understands the Bonjour (also known as ZeroConf or mDNS) protocol, which allows anyone to uncover information from the remote host such as its operating system type and exact version, its hostname, and the list of services it is running. This plugin attempts to discover mDNS used by hosts that are not on the network segment on which Nessus resides.

The remote service uses an SSL certificate chain that has been signed using a cryptographically weak hashing algorithm (e.g. MD2, MD4, MD5, or SHA1). These signature algorithms are known to be vulnerable to collision attacks. An attacker can exploit this to generate another certificate with the same digital signature, allowing an attacker to masquerade as the affected service. Note that this plugin reports all SSL certificate chains signed with SHA-1 that expire after January 1, 2017 as vulnerable. This is in accordance with Google's gradual sunsetting of the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm. Note that certificates in the chain that are contained in the Nessus CA database (known_CA.inc) have been ignored.

The remote service uses an SSL certificate chain that has been signed using a cryptographically weak hashing algorithm (e.g. MD2, MD4, MD5, or SHA1). These signature algorithms are known to be vulnerable to collision attacks. An attacker can exploit this to generate another certificate with the same digital signature, allowing an attacker to masquerade as the affected service. Note that this plugin reports all SSL certificate chains signed with SHA-1 that expire after January 1, 2017 as vulnerable. This is in accordance with Google's gradual sunsetting of the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm. Note that certificates in the chain that are contained in the Nessus CA database (known_CA.inc) have been ignored.

The 'commonName' (CN) attribute of the SSL certificate presented for this service is for a different machine.

The 'commonName' (CN) attribute of the SSL certificate presented for this service is for a different machine.

The 'commonName' (CN) attribute of the SSL certificate presented for this service is for a different machine.

The server's X.509 certificate cannot be trusted. This situation can occur in three different ways, in which the chain of trust can be broken, as stated below : - First, the top of the certificate chain sent by the server might not be descended from a known public certificate authority. This can occur either when the top of the chain is an unrecognized, self-signed certificate, or when intermediate certificates are missing that would connect the top of the certificate chain to a known public certificate authority. - Second, the certificate chain may contain a certificate that is not valid at the time of the scan. This can occur either when the scan occurs before one of the certificate's 'notBefore' dates, or after one of the certificate's 'notAfter' dates. - Third, the certificate chain may contain a signature that either didn't match the certificate's information or could not be verified. Bad signatures can be fixed by getting the certificate with the bad signature to be re-signed by its issuer. Signatures that could not be verified are the result of the certificate's issuer using a signing algorithm that Nessus either does not support or does not recognize. If the remote host is a public host in production, any break in the chain makes it more difficult for users to verify the authenticity and identity of the web server. This could make it easier to carry out man-in-the-middle attacks against the remote host.

The server's X.509 certificate cannot be trusted. This situation can occur in three different ways, in which the chain of trust can be broken, as stated below : - First, the top of the certificate chain sent by the server might not be descended from a known public certificate authority. This can occur either when the top of the chain is an unrecognized, self-signed certificate, or when intermediate certificates are missing that would connect the top of the certificate chain to a known public certificate authority. - Second, the certificate chain may contain a certificate that is not valid at the time of the scan. This can occur either when the scan occurs before one of the certificate's 'notBefore' dates, or after one of the certificate's 'notAfter' dates. - Third, the certificate chain may contain a signature that either didn't match the certificate's information or could not be verified. Bad signatures can be fixed by getting the certificate with the bad signature to be re-signed by its issuer. Signatures that could not be verified are the result of the certificate's issuer using a signing algorithm that Nessus either does not support or does not recognize. If the remote host is a public host in production, any break in the chain makes it more difficult for users to verify the authenticity and identity of the web server. This could make it easier to carry out man-in-the-middle attacks against the remote host.

The server's X.509 certificate cannot be trusted. This situation can occur in three different ways, in which the chain of trust can be broken, as stated below : - First, the top of the certificate chain sent by the server might not be descended from a known public certificate authority. This can occur either when the top of the chain is an unrecognized, self-signed certificate, or when intermediate certificates are missing that would connect the top of the certificate chain to a known public certificate authority. - Second, the certificate chain may contain a certificate that is not valid at the time of the scan. This can occur either when the scan occurs before one of the certificate's 'notBefore' dates, or after one of the certificate's 'notAfter' dates. - Third, the certificate chain may contain a signature that either didn't match the certificate's information or could not be verified. Bad signatures can be fixed by getting the certificate with the bad signature to be re-signed by its issuer. Signatures that could not be verified are the result of the certificate's issuer using a signing algorithm that Nessus either does not support or does not recognize. If the remote host is a public host in production, any break in the chain makes it more difficult for users to verify the authenticity and identity of the web server. This could make it easier to carry out man-in-the-middle attacks against the remote host.

The X.509 certificate chain for this service is not signed by a recognized certificate authority. If the remote host is a public host in production, this nullifies the use of SSL as anyone could establish a man-in-the-middle attack against the remote host. Note that this plugin does not check for certificate chains that end in a certificate that is not self-signed, but is signed by an unrecognized certificate authority.

The X.509 certificate chain for this service is not signed by a recognized certificate authority. If the remote host is a public host in production, this nullifies the use of SSL as anyone could establish a man-in-the-middle attack against the remote host. Note that this plugin does not check for certificate chains that end in a certificate that is not self-signed, but is signed by an unrecognized certificate authority.

The X.509 certificate chain for this service is not signed by a recognized certificate authority. If the remote host is a public host in production, this nullifies the use of SSL as anyone could establish a man-in-the-middle attack against the remote host. Note that this plugin does not check for certificate chains that end in a certificate that is not self-signed, but is signed by an unrecognized certificate authority.

Signing is not required on the remote SMB server. An unauthenticated, remote attacker can exploit this to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks against the SMB server.

The remote host supports the use of RC4 in one or more cipher suites. The RC4 cipher is flawed in its generation of a pseudo-random stream of bytes so that a wide variety of small biases are introduced into the stream, decreasing its randomness. If plaintext is repeatedly encrypted (e.g., HTTP cookies), and an attacker is able to obtain many (i.e., tens of millions) ciphertexts, the attacker may be able to derive the plaintext.

The remote host supports the use of RC4 in one or more cipher suites. The RC4 cipher is flawed in its generation of a pseudo-random stream of bytes so that a wide variety of small biases are introduced into the stream, decreasing its randomness. If plaintext is repeatedly encrypted (e.g., HTTP cookies), and an attacker is able to obtain many (i.e., tens of millions) ciphertexts, the attacker may be able to derive the plaintext.

The remote host supports the use of RC4 in one or more cipher suites. The RC4 cipher is flawed in its generation of a pseudo-random stream of bytes so that a wide variety of small biases are introduced into the stream, decreasing its randomness. If plaintext is repeatedly encrypted (e.g., HTTP cookies), and an attacker is able to obtain many (i.e., tens of millions) ciphertexts, the attacker may be able to derive the plaintext.

The remote host supports the use of RC4 in one or more cipher suites. The RC4 cipher is flawed in its generation of a pseudo-random stream of bytes so that a wide variety of small biases are introduced into the stream, decreasing its randomness. If plaintext is repeatedly encrypted (e.g., HTTP cookies), and an attacker is able to obtain many (i.e., tens of millions) ciphertexts, the attacker may be able to derive the plaintext.

The remote service accepts connections encrypted using TLS 1.0. TLS 1.0 has a number of cryptographic design flaws. Modern implementations of TLS 1.0 mitigate these problems, but newer versions of TLS like 1.2 and 1.3 are designed against these flaws and should be used whenever possible. As of March 31, 2020, Endpoints that aren’t enabled for TLS 1.2 and higher will no longer function properly with major web browsers and major vendors. PCI DSS v3.2 requires that TLS 1.0 be disabled entirely by June 30, 2018, except for POS POI terminals (and the SSL/TLS termination points to which they connect) that can be verified as not being susceptible to any known exploits.

The remote service accepts connections encrypted using TLS 1.0. TLS 1.0 has a number of cryptographic design flaws. Modern implementations of TLS 1.0 mitigate these problems, but newer versions of TLS like 1.2 and 1.3 are designed against these flaws and should be used whenever possible. As of March 31, 2020, Endpoints that aren’t enabled for TLS 1.2 and higher will no longer function properly with major web browsers and major vendors. PCI DSS v3.2 requires that TLS 1.0 be disabled entirely by June 30, 2018, except for POS POI terminals (and the SSL/TLS termination points to which they connect) that can be verified as not being susceptible to any known exploits.

The remote service accepts connections encrypted using TLS 1.1. TLS 1.1 lacks support for current and recommended cipher suites. Ciphers that support encryption before MAC computation, and authenticated encryption modes such as GCM cannot be used with TLS 1.1 As of March 31, 2020, Endpoints that are not enabled for TLS 1.2 and higher will no longer function properly with major web browsers and major vendors.

The remote service accepts connections encrypted using TLS 1.1. TLS 1.1 lacks support for current and recommended cipher suites. Ciphers that support encryption before MAC computation, and authenticated encryption modes such as GCM cannot be used with TLS 1.1 As of March 31, 2020, Endpoints that are not enabled for TLS 1.2 and higher will no longer function properly with major web browsers and major vendors.

The remote host answers to an ICMP timestamp request. This allows an attacker to know the date that is set on the targeted machine, which may assist an unauthenticated, remote attacker in defeating time-based authentication protocols. Timestamps returned from machines running Windows Vista / 7 / 2008 / 2008 R2 are deliberately incorrect, but usually within 1000 seconds of the actual system time.

At least one of the X.509 certificates sent by the remote host has a key that is shorter than 2048 bits. According to industry standards set by the Certification Authority/Browser (CA/B) Forum, certificates issued after January 1, 2014 must be at least 2048 bits. Some browser SSL implementations may reject keys less than 2048 bits after January 1, 2014. Additionally, some SSL certificate vendors may revoke certificates less than 2048 bits before January 1, 2014. Note that Nessus will not flag root certificates with RSA keys less than 2048 bits if they were issued prior to December 31, 2010, as the standard considers them exempt.