Page 10 of 137 results (0.022 seconds)

CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 49EXPL: 0

In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.15 and versions 5.3.x prior to 5.3.7, a WebFlux application is vulnerable to a privilege escalation: by (re)creating the temporary storage directory, a locally authenticated malicious user can read or modify files that have been uploaded to the WebFlux application, or overwrite arbitrary files with multipart request data. En Spring Framework, versiones 5.2.x anteriores a 5.2.15 y versiones 5.3.x anteriores a 5.3.7, una aplicación WebFlux es vulnerable a una escalada de privilegios: al (re)crear el directorio de almacenamiento temporal, un usuario malicioso autenticado localmente puede leer o modificar archivos que han sido subidos a la aplicación WebFlux, o sobrescribir archivos arbitrarios con petición de datos de múltiples partes • https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20210713-0005 https://tanzu.vmware.com/security/cve-2021-22118 https://www.oracle.com//security-alerts/cpujul2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2021.html https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-22118 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974854 • CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management CWE-281: Improper Preservation of Permissions CWE-668: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere •

CVSS: 5.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 136EXPL: 1

In Apache Commons IO before 2.7, When invoking the method FileNameUtils.normalize with an improper input string, like "//../foo", or "\\..\foo", the result would be the same value, thus possibly providing access to files in the parent directory, but not further above (thus "limited" path traversal), if the calling code would use the result to construct a path value. En Apache Commons IO versiones anteriores a 2.7, Cuando se invoca el método FileNameUtils.normalize con una cadena de entrada inapropiada, como "//../foo" o "\\..\ foo", el resultado sería el mismo valor, por lo que posiblemente proporcionar acceso a archivos en el directorio principal, pero no más arriba (por lo tanto, salto de ruta "limited"), si el código de llamada usara el resultado para construir un valor de ruta • https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-556 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r01b4a1fcdf3311c936ce33d75a9398b6c255f00c1a2f312ac21effe1%40%3Cnotifications.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0bfa8f7921abdfae788b1f076a12f73a92c93cc0a6e1083bce0027c5%40%3Cnotifications.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0d73e2071d1f1afe1a15da14c5b6feb2cf17e3871168d5a3c8451436%40%3Ccommits.pulsar.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1c2f4683c35696cf6f863e3c107e37ec41305b1930dd40c17260de71%40%3Ccommits.pulsar.apache.org%3E https:/ • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') •

CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 80%CPEs: 24EXPL: 2

In Eclipse Jetty 7.2.2 to 9.4.38, 10.0.0.alpha0 to 10.0.1, and 11.0.0.alpha0 to 11.0.1, CPU usage can reach 100% upon receiving a large invalid TLS frame. En Eclipse Jetty versiones 7.2.2 hasta 9.4.38, versiones 10.0.0.alpha0 hasta 10.0.1 y versiones 11.0.0.alpha0 hasta 11.0.1, el uso de CPU puede alcanzar el 100% al recibir una gran trama TLS no válida. When using SSL/TLS with Jetty, either with HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, or WebSocket, the server may receive an invalid large (greater than 17408) TLS frame that is incorrectly handled, causing high CPU resources utilization. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to service availability. • https://github.com/uthrasri/CVE-2021-28165 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/04/20/3 https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/security/advisories/GHSA-26vr-8j45-3r4w https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r002258611ed0c35b82b839d284b43db9dcdec120db8afc1c993137dc%40%3Cnotifications.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r03ca0b69db1e3e5f72fe484b71370d537cd711cbf334e2913332730a%40%3Cissues.spark.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r05db8e0ef01e1280cc7543575ae0fa1c2b4d06a8b928916ef65dd2ad%40%3Creviews.spark • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption CWE-551: Incorrect Behavior Order: Authorization Before Parsing and Canonicalization CWE-755: Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions •

CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 1%CPEs: 28EXPL: 0

Netty is an open-source, asynchronous event-driven network application framework for rapid development of maintainable high performance protocol servers & clients. In Netty (io.netty:netty-codec-http2) before version 4.1.61.Final there is a vulnerability that enables request smuggling. The content-length header is not correctly validated if the request only uses a single Http2HeaderFrame with the endStream set to to true. This could lead to request smuggling if the request is proxied to a remote peer and translated to HTTP/1.1. This is a followup of GHSA-wm47-8v5p-wjpj/CVE-2021-21295 which did miss to fix this one case. • https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-21295 https://github.com/netty/netty/commit/b0fa4d5aab4215f3c22ce6123dd8dd5f38dc0432 https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-f256-j965-7f32 https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-wm47-8v5p-wjpj https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0b09f3e31e004fe583f677f7afa46bd30110904576c13c5ac818ac2c%40%3Cissues.flink.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0ca82fec33334e571fe5b388272260778883e307e15415d7b1443de2%40%3Cissues.zookeeper.apache.org%3E https:& • CWE-444: Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') •

CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 205EXPL: 0

An OpenSSL TLS server may crash if sent a maliciously crafted renegotiation ClientHello message from a client. If a TLSv1.2 renegotiation ClientHello omits the signature_algorithms extension (where it was present in the initial ClientHello), but includes a signature_algorithms_cert extension then a NULL pointer dereference will result, leading to a crash and a denial of service attack. A server is only vulnerable if it has TLSv1.2 and renegotiation enabled (which is the default configuration). OpenSSL TLS clients are not impacted by this issue. All OpenSSL 1.1.1 versions are affected by this issue. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/27/1 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/27/2 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/28/3 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/03/28/4 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-772220.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=fb9fa6b51defd48157eeb207f52181f735d96148 https://kb.pulse • CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference •