CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 60EXPL: 0CVE-2022-27239
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2022-27239
In cifs-utils through 6.14, a stack-based buffer overflow when parsing the mount.cifs ip= command-line argument could lead to local attackers gaining root privileges. En cifs-utils versiones hasta 6.14, un desbordamiento del búfer en la región stack de la memoria cuando es analizado el argumento de línea de comandos mount.cifs ip= podría conllevar a que atacantes locales obtuvieran privilegios de root • http://wiki.robotz.com/index.php/Linux_CIFS_Utils_and_Samba https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15025 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197216 https://github.com/piastry/cifs-utils/pull/7 https://github.com/piastry/cifs-utils/pull/7/commits/955fb147e97a6a74e1aaa65766de91e2c1479765 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/05/msg00020.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5WBOLMANBYJILXQKRRK7OCR774PXJAYY https://lists& • CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write •
CVSS: 8.8EPSS: 80%CPEs: 36EXPL: 0CVE-2020-11853 – Arbitrary code execution vulnerability on multiple Micro Focus products
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2020-11853
Arbitrary code execution vulnerability affecting multiple Micro Focus products. 1.) Operation Bridge Manager affecting version: 2020.05, 2019.11, 2019.05, 2018.11, 2018.05, versions 10.6x and 10.1x and older versions. 2.) Application Performance Management affecting versions : 9.51, 9.50 and 9.40 with uCMDB 10.33 CUP 3 3.) Data Center Automation affected version 2019.11 4.) Operations Bridge (containerized) affecting versions: 2019.11, 2019.08, 2019.05, 2018.11, 2018.08, 2018.05, 2018.02, 2017.11 5.) • http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/161182/Micro-Focus-UCMDB-Remote-Code-Execution.html http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/161366/Micro-Focus-Operations-Bridge-Manager-Remote-Code-Execution.html https://softwaresupport.softwaregrp.com/doc/KM03747657 https://softwaresupport.softwaregrp.com/doc/KM03747658 https://softwaresupport.softwaregrp.com/doc/KM03747854 https://softwaresupport.softwaregrp.com/doc/KM03747948 https://softwaresupport.softwaregrp.com/doc/KM03747949 https://softwaresupport.softwaregrp.com/doc/KM03747950 https://soft •
CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 74%CPEs: 127EXPL: 0CVE-2018-5390 – Linux kernel versions 4.9+ can be forced to make very expensive calls to tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() and tcp_prune_ofo_queue() for every incoming packet which can lead to a denial of service
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-5390
Linux kernel versions 4.9+ can be forced to make very expensive calls to tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() and tcp_prune_ofo_queue() for every incoming packet which can lead to a denial of service. El kernel de Linux en versiones 4.9 y siguientes pueden forzarse a realizar llamadas muy caras a tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() y tcp_prune_ofo_queue() para cada paquete entrante, lo que puede conducir a una denegación de servicio. A flaw named SegmentSmack was found in the way the Linux kernel handled specially crafted TCP packets. A remote attacker could use this flaw to trigger time and calculation expensive calls to tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() and tcp_prune_ofo_queue() functions by sending specially modified packets within ongoing TCP sessions which could lead to a CPU saturation and hence a denial of service on the system. Maintaining the denial of service condition requires continuous two-way TCP sessions to a reachable open port, thus the attacks cannot be performed using spoofed IP addresses. • http://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/alert/ARUBA-PSA-2018-004.txt http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20181031-02-linux-en http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/06/28/2 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/07/06/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/07/06/4 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/104976 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041424 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041434 https://access.redhat.co • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption •
CVSS: 10.0EPSS: 63%CPEs: 2EXPL: 0CVE-2017-8990 – Hewlett Packard Enterprise Intelligent Management Center imcwlandm strMac Stack-based Buffer Overflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-8990
A remote code execution vulnerability was identified in HPE Intelligent Management Center (iMC) Wireless Service Manager (WSM) Software earlier than version WSM 7.3 (E0506). This issue was resolved in HPE IMC Wireless Services Manager Software IMC WSM 7.3 E0506P01 or subsequent version. Se ha identificado una vulnerabilidad de ejecución remota de código en HPE Intelligent Management Center (iMC) Wireless Service Manager (WSM) Software en versiones anteriores a la WSM 7.3 (E0506). El problema se resolvió en HPE IMC Wireless Services Manager Software IMC WSM 7.3 E0506P01 y siguientes. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Intelligent Management Center. • http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040988 https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docLocale=en_US&docId=emr_na-hpesbhf03852en_us •
CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 1%CPEs: 29EXPL: 0CVE-2017-7658 – jetty: Incorrect header handling
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-7658
In Eclipse Jetty Server, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all non HTTP/1.x configurations), and 9.4.x (all HTTP/1.x configurations), when presented with two content-lengths headers, Jetty ignored the second. When presented with a content-length and a chunked encoding header, the content-length was ignored (as per RFC 2616). If an intermediary decided on the shorter length, but still passed on the longer body, then body content could be interpreted by Jetty as a pipelined request. If the intermediary was imposing authorization, the fake pipelined request would bypass that authorization. En Eclipse Jetty Server, en versiones 9.2.x y anteriores, versiones 9.3.x (todas las configuraciones que no sean HTTP/1.x) y versiones 9.4.x (todas las configuraciones HTTP/1.x), cuando se presentan con dos cabeceras content-lengths, Jetty ignora la segunda. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106566 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041194 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=535669 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/053d9ce4d579b02203db18545fee5e33f35f2932885459b74d1e4272%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/708d94141126eac03011144a971a6411fcac16d9c248d1d535a39451%40%3Csolr-user.lucene.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9317fd092b257a0815434b116a8af8daea6e920b6673f4fd5583d5fe%40%3Ccommits.druid.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread& • CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') •