CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 2EXPL: 0CVE-2018-1072 – ovirt-engine-setup: unfiltered db password in engine-backup log
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1072
ovirt-engine before version ovirt 4.2.2 is vulnerable to an information exposure through log files. When engine-backup was run with one of the options "--provision*db", the database username and password were logged in cleartext. Sharing the provisioning log might inadvertently leak database passwords. ovirt-engine en versiones anteriores a ovirt 4.2.2 es vulnerable a una exposición de información mediante archivos de log. Cuando engine-backup se ejecutaba con una de las opciones "--provision*db", el nombre de usuario y la contraseña de la base de la base de datos se registraban en texto claro. Compartir el log de aprovisionamiento podía fugar de manera inadvertida contraseñas de la base de datos. • https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2071 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2018-1072 https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2018-1072 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553522 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540622 • CWE-532: Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 31EXPL: 0CVE-2018-1000180 – bouncycastle: flaw in the low-level interface to RSA key pair generator
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1000180
Bouncy Castle BC 1.54 - 1.59, BC-FJA 1.0.0, BC-FJA 1.0.1 and earlier have a flaw in the Low-level interface to RSA key pair generator, specifically RSA Key Pairs generated in low-level API with added certainty may have less M-R tests than expected. This appears to be fixed in versions BC 1.60 beta 4 and later, BC-FJA 1.0.2 and later. Bouncy Castle BC 1.54 - 1.59, BC-FJA 1.0.0, BC-FJA 1.0.1 y anteriores tiene un vulnerabilidad en la interfaz de bajo nivel del generador de claves RSA; específicamente, los pares de claves RSA generados en la API de bajo nivel con un valor certainty añadido pueden tener menos tests M-R de lo esperado. Parece que se ha resuelto en versiones BC 1.60 beta 4 y posteriores y BC-FJA 1.0.2 y posteriores. A vulnerability was found in BouncyCastle. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106567 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2423 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2424 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2425 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2428 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2643 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2669 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:0877 https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/22467b6e8fe19717ecdf201c0cf91bacf04a55ad https://github.com/bcgit/ • CWE-325: Missing Cryptographic Step CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm •
CVSS: 5.6EPSS: 0%CPEs: 665EXPL: 5CVE-2018-3639 – AMD / ARM / Intel - Speculative Execution Variant 4 Speculative Store Bypass
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-3639
Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and speculative execution of memory reads before the addresses of all prior memory writes are known may allow unauthorized disclosure of information to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis, aka Speculative Store Bypass (SSB), Variant 4. Los sistemas con microprocesadores que emplean la ejecución especulativa y que realizan la ejecución especulativa de lecturas de memoria antes de que se conozcan las direcciones de todas las anteriores escrituras de memoria podrían permitir la divulgación no autorizada de información a un atacante con acceso de usuario local mediante un análisis de canal lateral. Esto también se conoce como Speculative Store Bypass (SSB), Variant 4. An industry-wide issue was found in the way many modern microprocessor designs have implemented speculative execution of Load & Store instructions (a commonly used performance optimization). It relies on the presence of a precisely-defined instruction sequence in the privileged code as well as the fact that memory read from address to which a recent memory write has occurred may see an older value and subsequently cause an update into the microprocessor's data cache even for speculatively executed instructions that never actually commit (retire). • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44695 https://github.com/mmxsrup/CVE-2018-3639 https://github.com/Shuiliusheng/CVE-2018-3639-specter-v4- https://github.com/malindarathnayake/Intel-CVE-2018-3639-Mitigation_RegistryUpdate http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-05/msg00058.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-05/msg00059.html http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-09/msg00007.html http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/LEN-2213 • CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor CWE-203: Observable Discrepancy •
CVSS: 7.9EPSS: 97%CPEs: 22EXPL: 4CVE-2018-1111 – DynoRoot DHCP Client - Command Injection
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1111
DHCP packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and 7, Fedora 28, and earlier are vulnerable to a command injection flaw in the NetworkManager integration script included in the DHCP client. A malicious DHCP server, or an attacker on the local network able to spoof DHCP responses, could use this flaw to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges on systems using NetworkManager and configured to obtain network configuration using the DHCP protocol. Los paquetes DHCP en Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 y 7, Fedora 28 y anteriores son vulnerables a un error de inyección de comandos en el script de integración NetworkManager incluido en el cliente DHCP. Un servidor DHCP malicioso o un atacante en la red ocal capaz de suplantar respuestas DHCP podría emplear este error para ejecutar comandos arbitrarios con privilegios root en sistemas que emplean NetworkManager y se configuran para obtener la configuración de red mediante el protocolo de configuración dinámica de host (DHCP). A command injection flaw was found in the NetworkManager integration script included in the DHCP client packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44652 https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44890 https://github.com/kkirsche/CVE-2018-1111 https://github.com/knqyf263/CVE-2018-1111 http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/104195 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040912 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1453 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1454 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1455 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:1456 https://access.redhat.com&#x • CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') •
CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 1%CPEs: 42EXPL: 0CVE-2018-10237 – guava: Unbounded memory allocation in AtomicDoubleArray and CompoundOrdering classes allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-10237
Unbounded memory allocation in Google Guava 11.0 through 24.x before 24.1.1 allows remote attackers to conduct denial of service attacks against servers that depend on this library and deserialize attacker-provided data, because the AtomicDoubleArray class (when serialized with Java serialization) and the CompoundOrdering class (when serialized with GWT serialization) perform eager allocation without appropriate checks on what a client has sent and whether the data size is reasonable. Asignación de memoria sin restringir en Google Guava 11.0 hasta las versiones 24.x anteriores a la 24.1.1 permite que los atacantes remotos realicen ataques de denegación de servicio (DoS) contra servidores que dependen de esta librería y que deserialicen datos proporcionados por dichos atacantes debido a que la clase AtomicDoubleArray (cuando se serializa con serialización Java) y la clase CompoundOrdering (cuando se serializa con serialización GWT) realiza una asignación sin comprobar adecuadamente lo que ha enviado un cliente y si el tamaño de los datos es razonable. A vulnerability was found in Guava where the AtomicDoubleArray and CompoundOrdering classes were found to allocate memory based on size fields sent by the client without validation. A crafted message could cause the server to consume all available memory or crash leading to a denial of service. • http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1041707 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2423 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2424 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2425 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2428 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2598 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2643 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2740 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2741 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:274 • CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling •