cvekit
LIVE
ATT&CK matrix

T1040

Network Sniffing

16 CVEs mapped
TA0006Credential AccessTA0007Discovery
Adversaries may passively sniff network traffic to capture information about an environment, including authentication material passed over the network. Network sniffing refers to using the network interface on a system to monitor or capture information sent over a wired or wireless connection. An adversary may place a network interface into promiscuous mode to passively access data in transit over the network, or use span ports to capture a larger amount of data. Data captured via this technique may include user credentials, especially those sent over an insecure, unencrypted protocol. Techniques for name service resolution poisoning, such as [Name Resolution Poisoning and SMB Relay](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1557/001), can also be used to capture credentials to websites, proxies, and internal systems by redirecting traffic to an adversary. Network sniffing may reveal configuration details, such as running services, version numbers, and other network characteristics (e.g. IP addresses, hostnames, VLAN IDs) necessary for subsequent [Lateral Movement](https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0008) and/or [Stealth](https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0005) activities. Adversaries may likely also utilize network sniffing during [Adversary-in-the-Middle](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1557) (AiTM) to passively gain additional knowledge about the environment. In cloud-based environments, adversaries may still be able to use traffic mirroring services to sniff network traffic from virtual machines. For example, AWS Traffic Mirroring, GCP Packet Mirroring, and Azure vTap allow users to define specified instances to collect traffic from and specified targets to send collected traffic to.(Citation: AWS Traffic Mirroring)(Citation: GCP Packet Mirroring)(Citation: Azure Virtual Network TAP) Often, much of this traffic will be in cleartext due to the use of TLS termination at the load balancer level to reduce the strain of encrypting and decrypting traffic.(Citation: Rhino Security Labs AWS VPC Traffic Mirroring)(Citation: SpecterOps AWS Traffic Mirroring) The adversary can then use exfiltration techniques such as Transfer Data to Cloud Account in order to access the sniffed traffic.(Citation: Rhino Security Labs AWS VPC Traffic Mirroring) On network devices, adversaries may perform network captures using [Network Device CLI](https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1059/008) commands such as `monitor capture`.(Citation: US-CERT-TA18-106A)(Citation: capture_embedded_packet_on_software)

Platforms5

IaaSLinuxmacOSNetwork DevicesWindows

CVEs mapped to this technique16

CVEDescriptionSeverityEPSSFlagsModified
CVE-2026-21643

An improper neutralization of special elements used in an sql command ('sql injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientEMS 7.4.4 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specifically crafted HTTP requests.

CRITICAL9.1
94%p100
KEV
2026-06-17
CVE-2026-0257

Authentication bypass vulnerabilities in the GlobalProtect portal and gateway of Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software allows the attacker to bypass security restrictions and establish an unauthorized VPN connection. Panorama and Cloud NGFW are not impacted by these issues.

CRITICAL9.1
94%p100
KEV+RPoC
2026-07-14
CVE-2026-39808

A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.8 may allow attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via <insert attack vector here>

CRITICAL9.1
90%p100
KEVPoC
2026-07-17
CVE-2026-35616

A improper access control vulnerability in Fortinet FortiClientEMS 7.4.5 through 7.4.6 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted requests.

CRITICAL9.1
89%p100
KEVPoC
2026-07-24
CVE-2026-20230

A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Unified CM) and Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition (Unified CM SME) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks through an affected device. This vulnerability is due to improper input validation for specific HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to write files to the underlying operating system that could be used later to elevate to root. Note: Cisco has assigned this security advisory a Security Impact Rating (SIR) of Critical rather than High as the score indicates. The reason is that exploitation of this vulnerability could result in an attacker elevating privileges to root. Note: To exploit this vulnerability, the WebDialer service must be enabled. WebDialer is disabled by default.

HIGH8.6
83%p100
KEVPoC
2026-07-22
CVE-2026-25089

A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox 5.0.0 through 5.0.5, FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.8, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox Cloud 5.0.4 through 5.0.5, FortiSandbox PaaS 5.0.4 through 5.0.5 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute unauthorized commands via specifically crafted HTTP requests

CRITICAL9.1
70%p99
KEVPoC
2026-07-23
CVE-2025-66376

Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) 10 before 10.0.18 and 10.1 before 10.1.13 allows Classic UI stored XSS via Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) @import directives in an HTML e-mail message.

MEDIUM6.1
22%p97
KEV
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-15094

In Symfony before versions 4.4.13 and 5.1.5, the CachingHttpClient class from the HttpClient Symfony component relies on the HttpCache class to handle requests. HttpCache uses internal headers like X-Body-Eval and X-Body-File to control the restoration of cached responses. The class was initially written with surrogate caching and ESI support in mind (all HTTP calls come from a trusted backend in that scenario). But when used by CachingHttpClient and if an attacker can control the response for a request being made by the CachingHttpClient, remote code execution is possible. This has been fixed in versions 4.4.13 and 5.1.5.

HIGH8.8
3.04%p86
2026-06-17
CVE-2019-1715

A vulnerability in the Deterministic Random Bit Generator (DRBG), also known as Pseudorandom Number Generator (PRNG), used in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software and Cisco Firepower Threat Defense (FTD) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a cryptographic collision, enabling the attacker to discover the private key of an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient entropy in the DRBG when generating cryptographic keys. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by generating a large number of cryptographic keys on an affected device and looking for collisions with target devices. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to impersonate an affected target device or to decrypt traffic secured by an affected key that is sent to or from an affected target device.

NONE
1.71%p75
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-0884

A spoofing vulnerability exists in Microsoft Visual Studio as it includes a reply URL that is not secured by SSL, aka 'Microsoft Visual Studio Spoofing Vulnerability'.

LOW3.7
1.67%p75
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-5261

Saml2 Authentication services for ASP.NET (NuGet package Sustainsys.Saml2) greater than 2.0.0, and less than version 2.5.0 has a faulty implementation of Token Replay Detection. Token Replay Detection is an important defence in depth measure for Single Sign On solutions. The 2.5.0 version is patched. Note that version 1.0.1 is not affected. It has a correct Token Replay Implementation and is safe to use. Saml2 Authentication services for ASP.NET (NuGet package Sustainsys.Saml2) greater than 2.0.0, and less than version 2.5.0 have a faulty implementation of Token Replay Detection. Token Replay Detection is an important defense measure for Single Sign On solutions. The 2.5.0 version is patched. Note that version 1.0.1 and prior versions are not affected. These versions have a correct Token Replay Implementation and are safe to use.

MEDIUM6.8
1.50%p72
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-15093

The tough library (Rust/crates.io) prior to version 0.7.1 does not properly verify the threshold of cryptographic signatures. It allows an attacker to duplicate a valid signature in order to circumvent TUF requiring a minimum threshold of unique signatures before the metadata is considered valid. A fix is available in version 0.7.1. CVE-2020-6174 is assigned to the same vulnerability in the TUF reference implementation.

HIGH8.6
1.36%p69
2026-06-17
CVE-2018-7259

The FSX / P3Dv4 installer 2.0.1.231 for Flight Sim Labs A320-X sends a user's Google account credentials to http://installLog.flightsimlabs.com/LogHandler3.ashx if a pirated serial number has been entered, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information, e.g., by sniffing the network for cleartext HTTP traffic. This behavior was removed in 2.0.1.232.

NONE
1.00%p59
2026-06-17
CVE-2020-11035

In GLPI after version 0.83.3 and before version 9.4.6, the CSRF tokens are generated using an insecure algorithm. The implementation uses rand and uniqid and MD5 which does not provide secure values. This is fixed in version 9.4.6.

CRITICAL9.3
0.78%p52
2026-06-17
CVE-2018-11749

When users are configured to use startTLS with RBAC LDAP, at login time, the user's credentials are sent via plaintext to the LDAP server. This affects Puppet Enterprise 2018.1.3, 2017.3.9, and 2016.4.14, and is fixed in Puppet Enterprise 2018.1.4, 2017.3.10, and 2016.4.15. It scored an 8.5 CVSS score.

NONE
0.76%p52
2026-06-17
CVE-2018-14781

Medtronic MiniMed MMT devices when paired with a remote controller and having the “easy bolus” and “remote bolus” options enabled (non-default), are vulnerable to a capture-replay attack. An attacker can capture the wireless transmissions between the remote controller and the pump and replay them to cause an insulin (bolus) delivery.

MEDIUM5.3
0.71%p50
2026-06-17