Page 3 of 55 results (0.041 seconds)

CVSS: 7.2EPSS: 0%CPEs: 48EXPL: 6

Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. Las versiones de Lodash anteriores a la 4.17.21 son vulnerables a la inyección de comandos a través de la función de plantilla A flaw was found in nodejs-lodash. A command injection flaw is possible through template variables. • https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-637483.pdf https://github.com/lodash/lodash/blob/ddfd9b11a0126db2302cb70ec9973b66baec0975/lodash.js%23L14851 https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20210312-0006 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGFUJIONWEBJARS-1074932 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARS-1074930 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWER-1074928 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWERGITHUBLODASH-1074931 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM-1074929 https://snyk. • CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') •

CVSS: 5.3EPSS: 0%CPEs: 42EXPL: 6

Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions. Las versiones de Lodash anteriores a la 4.17.21 son vulnerables a la denegación de servicio por expresiones regulares (ReDoS) a través de las funciones toNumber, trim y trimEnd A flaw was found in nodejs-lodash. A Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions is possible. • https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-637483.pdf https://github.com/lodash/lodash/blob/npm/trimEnd.js%23L8 https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/5065 https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20210312-0006 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGFUJIONWEBJARS-1074896 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARS-1074894 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWER-1074892 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSBOWERGITHUBLODASH-1074895 https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JAVA-ORGWEBJARSNPM&# • CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption •

CVSS: 5.9EPSS: 0%CPEs: 75EXPL: 1

The X.509 GeneralName type is a generic type for representing different types of names. One of those name types is known as EDIPartyName. OpenSSL provides a function GENERAL_NAME_cmp which compares different instances of a GENERAL_NAME to see if they are equal or not. This function behaves incorrectly when both GENERAL_NAMEs contain an EDIPARTYNAME. A NULL pointer dereference and a crash may occur leading to a possible denial of service attack. • https://github.com/MBHudson/CVE-2020-1971 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/09/14/2 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=2154ab83e14ede338d2ede9bbe5cdfce5d5a6c9e https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=f960d81215ebf3f65e03d4d5d857fb9b666d6920 https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44676 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r63c6f2dd363d9b514d0a4bcf624580616a679898cc14c109a49b7 • CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference •

CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 25EXPL: 0

Apache Batik is vulnerable to server-side request forgery, caused by improper input validation by the "xlink:href" attributes. By using a specially-crafted argument, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause the underlying server to make arbitrary GET requests. Apache Batik es vulnerable a un ataque de tipo server-side request forgery, causada por una comprobación inapropiada de la entrada por parte de los atributos "xlink:href". Al utilizar un argumento especialmente diseñado, un atacante podría explotar esta vulnerabilidad para causar que el servidor subyacente realice peticiones GET arbitrarias A flaw was found in the Apache Batik library, where it is vulnerable to a Server-Side Request Forgery attack (SSRF) via "xlink:href" attributes. This flaw allows an attacker to cause the underlying server to make arbitrary GET requests. • https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rab94fe68b180d2e2fba97abf6fe1ec83cff826be25f86cd90f047171%40%3Ccommits.myfaces.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rcab14a9ec91aa4c151e0729966282920423eff50a22759fd21db6509%40%3Ccommits.myfaces.apache.org%3E https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202401-11 https://www.oracle.com//security-alerts/cpujul2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuApr2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2022.html https://www&# • CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) •

CVSS: 8.7EPSS: 13%CPEs: 77EXPL: 1

In Spring Framework versions 5.2.0 - 5.2.8, 5.1.0 - 5.1.17, 5.0.0 - 5.0.18, 4.3.0 - 4.3.28, and older unsupported versions, the protections against RFD attacks from CVE-2015-5211 may be bypassed depending on the browser used through the use of a jsessionid path parameter. En Spring Framework versiones 5.2.0 - 5.2.8, 5.1.0 - 5.1.17, 5.0.0 - 5.0.18, 4.3.0 - 4.3.28 y versiones anteriores no compatibles, las protecciones contra ataques RFD del CVE-2015 -5211 puede ser omitidas según el navegador usado mediante el uso de un parámetro de ruta jsessionid In Spring Framework, the protections against RFD attacks from CVE-2015-5211 may be bypassed depending on the browser used through the use of a jsessionid path parameter. • https://github.com/pandaMingx/CVE-2020-5421 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1c679c43fa4f7846d748a937955c7921436d1b315445978254442163%40%3Ccommits.ambari.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1eccdbd7986618a7319ee7a533bd9d9bf6e8678e59dd4cca9b5b2d7a%40%3Cissues.ambari.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3589ed0d18edeb79028615080d5a0e8878856436bb91774a3196d9eb%40%3Ccommits.pulsar.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r503e64b43a57fd68229cac4a869d1a9a2eac9e75f8719cad3a840211%40%3Ccommits.pulsar.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.or •