CVSS: 5.0EPSS: 2%CPEs: 4EXPL: 1CVE-2010-0751
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2010-0751
The ip_evictor function in ip_fragment.c in libnids before 1.24, as used in dsniff and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and crash) via crafted fragmented packets. La función ip_evictor en ip_fragment.c en libnids versiones anteriores a 1.24, tal y como se utiliza en dnsniff y posiblemente otros productos, permite a atacantes remotos producir una denegación de servicio (desreferencia a puntero NULL y caida) a través de paquetes fragmentados manipulados. • http://freefr.dl.sourceforge.net/project/libnids/libnids/1.24/libnids-1.24.releasenotes.txt http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-April/038375.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-April/038388.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-April/038410.html http://secunia.com/advisories/39225 http://secunia.com/advisories/39249 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/39142 http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/0777 http: • CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference •
CVSS: 10.0EPSS: 77%CPEs: 10EXPL: 1CVE-2010-0050 – Apple Webkit Blink Event Dangling Pointer Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2010-0050
Use-after-free vulnerability in WebKit in Apple Safari before 4.0.5 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (application crash) via an HTML document with improperly nested tags. Vulnerabilidad uso después de la liberación (use-after-free) en Apple Safari anterior v4.0.5 permite a atacantes remotos ejecutar código de su elección o causar una denegación de servicio (caída de aplicación) a través de un documento HTML con etiquetas inadecuadamente anidadas. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable software utilizing Apple's WebKit library. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page. The specific flaw exists due to a failure to unregister a callback pointer during the destruction of a particular type of element when embedded inside a 'blink' container. The application dereferences the original resource which can can be leveraged by an attacker to execute arbitrary code under the context of the current user. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/12425 http://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2010/Jun/msg00003.html http://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2010/Mar/msg00000.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-May/041383.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-May/041432.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-May/041436.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2011-01/msg00006.html http:&# • CWE-416: Use After Free •
CVSS: 4.3EPSS: 0%CPEs: 6EXPL: 0CVE-2010-0434 – httpd: request header information leak
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2010-0434
The ap_read_request function in server/protocol.c in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.x before 2.2.15, when a multithreaded MPM is used, does not properly handle headers in subrequests in certain circumstances involving a parent request that has a body, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a crafted request that triggers access to memory locations associated with an earlier request. La funcion ap_read_request en server/protocol.c en Apache HTTP Server v2.2.x en versiones anteriores a v2.2.15, cuando se utiliza multithreaded MPM , no maneja adecuadamente las cabeceras de las subpeticiones en ciertas circunstancias incluyendo una peticion padre que tiene cuerpo, lo que permite a atacantes remotos obtener informacion sensible a traves de una peticion manipulada que inicia un acceso a lugares de la memoria asociados con las ultimas peticiones. • http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_22.html http://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2010//Nov/msg00000.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-April/039957.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-May/040652.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2010-04/msg00006.html http://lists.vmware.com/pipermail/security-announce/2010/000105.html http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=127557640302499&w=2 http://secunia& • CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor •
CVSS: 4.3EPSS: 1%CPEs: 21EXPL: 0CVE-2010-0205 – libpng: excessive memory consumption due to highly compressed huge ancillary chunk
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2010-0205
The png_decompress_chunk function in pngrutil.c in libpng 1.0.x before 1.0.53, 1.2.x before 1.2.43, and 1.4.x before 1.4.1 does not properly handle compressed ancillary-chunk data that has a disproportionately large uncompressed representation, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory and CPU consumption, and application hang) via a crafted PNG file, as demonstrated by use of the deflate compression method on data composed of many occurrences of the same character, related to a "decompression bomb" attack. La función png_decompress_chunk en pngrutil.c en libpng 1.0.x en versiones anteriores a la 1.0.53, 1.2.x en versiones anteriores a la 1.2.43 y1.4.x en versiones anteriores a la 1.4.1 no maneja adecuadamente los datos fragmentados auxiliares comprimidos que tienen una representación descomprimida desproporcionada, lo que permite a atacantes remotos provocar una denegación de servicio (consumo de la CPU y de la memoria y cuelgue de la aplicación) mediante un fichero PNG manipulado, como ha quedado demostrado por el uso del método de decompresión con datos con muchas ocurrencias del mismo caracter, en relación con un ataque "decompression bomb" (bomba de descompresión). • http://libpng.sourceforge.net/ADVISORY-1.4.1.html http://libpng.sourceforge.net/decompression_bombs.html http://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2010//Nov/msg00000.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-March/037237.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-March/037355.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-March/037364.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/package-announce/2010-March/037607.html http:/ • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption •
CVSS: 5.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 21EXPL: 5CVE-2009-3555 – Mozilla NSS - NULL Character CA SSL Certificate Validation Security Bypass
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2009-3555
The TLS protocol, and the SSL protocol 3.0 and possibly earlier, as used in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.0, mod_ssl in the Apache HTTP Server 2.2.14 and earlier, OpenSSL before 0.9.8l, GnuTLS 2.8.5 and earlier, Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) 3.12.4 and earlier, multiple Cisco products, and other products, does not properly associate renegotiation handshakes with an existing connection, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to insert data into HTTPS sessions, and possibly other types of sessions protected by TLS or SSL, by sending an unauthenticated request that is processed retroactively by a server in a post-renegotiation context, related to a "plaintext injection" attack, aka the "Project Mogul" issue. El protocolo TLS y el protocolo SSL v3.0 y posiblemente versiones anteriores, tal y como se usa en Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) v7.0, mod_ssl en el servidor HTTP Apache v2.2.14 y anteriores, OpenSSL antes de v0.9.8l, GnuTLS v2.8.5 y anteriores, Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) v3.12.4 y anteriores, y otros productos, no asocia apropiadamente la renegociación del Handshake SSL en una conexión existente, lo que permite ataques man-in-the-middle en los que el atacante inserta datos en sesiones HTTPS, y posiblemente otro tipo de sesiones protegidas por SSL o TLS, enviando una petición de autenticación que es procesada retroactivamente por un servidor en un contexto post-renegociación. Se trata de un ataque de "inyección de texto plano", también conocido como el problema del "Proyecto Mogul". • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/10071 https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/10579 http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2013-11/0120.html http://blog.g-sec.lu/2009/11/tls-sslv3-renegotiation-vulnerability.html http://blogs.iss.net/archive/sslmitmiscsrf.html http://blogs.sun.com/security/entry/vulnerability_in_tls_protocol_during http://clicky.me/tlsvuln http://extendedsubset.com/?p=8 http://extendedsubset.com/Renegotiating_TLS.pdf http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppo • CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation CWE-300: Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint •