Ettercap through 0.8.4.1 contains an out-of-bounds read and size_t underflow vulnerability in sslw_remove_sts() in

Attack Vector: Adjacent

The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).

Attack Complexity: Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements: None

The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.

Privileges Required: None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction: None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.

Vulnerable system confidentiality: None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.

Vulnerable system integrity: High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.

Vulnerable system availability: High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Subsequent system confidentiality: None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Subsequent system integrity: None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Subsequent system availability: None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.