Affected: airlift aircompressor

Aircompressor is a library with ports of the Snappy, LZO, LZ4, and Zstandard compression algorithms to Java. In versions 3.3 and below, incorrect handling of malformed data in Java-based decompressor implementations for Snappy and LZ4 allow remote attackers to read previous buffer contents via crafted compressed input. With certain crafted compressed inputs, elements from the output buffer can end up in the uncompressed output, potentially leaking sensitive data. This is relevant for applications that reuse the same output buffer to uncompress multiple inputs. This can be the case of a web server that allocates a fix-sized buffer for performance purposes. There is similar vulnerability in GHSA-cmp6-m4wj-q63q. This issue is fixed in version 3.4.

Affected: Maven: io.netty:netty-handler-ssl-ocsp

### Summary Netty's OcspClient does not validate that the CertificateID in an OCSP response matches the requested CertificateID. A bad actor can replay a `GOOD` status response issued for an unrelated certificate (by the same CA) to bypass revocation checks for any certificate.

### Details `io.netty.handler.ssl.ocsp.OcspClient#validateResponse` fails to assert that the CertificateID within the returned `BasicOCSPResp` matches the original certificate being validated.

When `OcspClient.query(...)` executes, it builds an OCSP request using the victim certificate's serial number and issuer hash. It then sends this request and receives a response. While the client verifies the signature of the response against the trusted issuer (or a valid responder chain), it never checks the CertificateID inside the response payload.

A bad actor who has access to any other valid, non-revoked certificate issued by the same CA can obtain a legitimately signed OCSP response indicating that the unrelated certificate is `GOOD`. The bad actor can then return this valid response to the Netty client when it queries the status of any other certificate (e.g., a revoked certificate) issued by the same CA. Because the signature is valid (signed by the CA) and the CertificateID is ignored, the client will incorrectly accept the target certificate as valid.

As per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6960#section-3.2 we have:

``` Prior to accepting a signed response for a particular certificate as…