CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 31EXPL: 0CVE-2019-0201 – zookeeper: Information disclosure in Apache ZooKeeper
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2019-0201
An issue is present in Apache ZooKeeper 1.0.0 to 3.4.13 and 3.5.0-alpha to 3.5.4-beta. ZooKeeper’s getACL() command doesn’t check any permission when retrieves the ACLs of the requested node and returns all information contained in the ACL Id field as plaintext string. DigestAuthenticationProvider overloads the Id field with the hash value that is used for user authentication. As a consequence, if Digest Authentication is in use, the unsalted hash value will be disclosed by getACL() request for unauthenticated or unprivileged users. Hay un problema presente en Apache ZooKeeper 1.0.0 a 3.4.13 y 3.5.0-alpha a 3.5.4-beta. • http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108427 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3140 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3892 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:4352 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1392 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/053d9ce4d579b02203db18545fee5e33f35f2932885459b74d1e4272%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/519eb0fd45642dcecd9ff74cb3e71c20a4753f7d82e2f07864b5108f%40%3Cdev.drill.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html&#x • CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource CWE-862: Missing Authorization •
CVSS: 7.8EPSS: 0%CPEs: 7EXPL: 1CVE-2018-10906 – fusermount - user_allow_other Restriction Bypass and SELinux Label Control
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-10906
In fuse before versions 2.9.8 and 3.x before 3.2.5, fusermount is vulnerable to a restriction bypass when SELinux is active. This allows non-root users to mount a FUSE file system with the 'allow_other' mount option regardless of whether 'user_allow_other' is set in the fuse configuration. An attacker may use this flaw to mount a FUSE file system, accessible by other users, and trick them into accessing files on that file system, possibly causing Denial of Service or other unspecified effects. En fuse, en versiones anteriores a la 2.9.8 y en versiones 3.x anteriores a la 3.2.5, fusermount es vulnerable a una omisión de restricciones cuando SELinux está activo. Esto permite que usuarios no root monten un sistema de archivos FUSE con la opción "allow_other", independientemente de si "user_allow_other" está establecido en la configuración de fuse. • https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/45106 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:3324 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2018-10906 https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2018/08/msg00015.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5XYA6PXT5PPWVK7CM7K4YRCYWA37DODB https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/A253TZWZK6R7PT2S5JIEAQJR2TYKX7V2 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package • CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management CWE-285: Improper Authorization •
CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 76%CPEs: 70EXPL: 4CVE-2018-1270 – spring-framework: Possible RCE via spring messaging
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1270
Spring Framework, versions 5.0 prior to 5.0.5 and versions 4.3 prior to 4.3.15 and older unsupported versions, allow applications to expose STOMP over WebSocket endpoints with a simple, in-memory STOMP broker through the spring-messaging module. A malicious user (or attacker) can craft a message to the broker that can lead to a remote code execution attack. Spring Framework, en versiones 5.0 anteriores a la 5.0.5 y versiones 4.3 anteriores a la 4.3.15, así como versiones más antiguas no soportadas, permite que las aplicaciones expongan STOMP en endpoints WebSocket con un simple agente STOMP en memoria a través del módulo spring-messaging. Un usuario (o atacante) malicioso puede manipular un mensaje al agente que desemboca en un ataque de ejecución remota de código. Pivotal Spring Java Framework versions 5.0.x and below suffer from a remote code execution vulnerability. • https://github.com/CaledoniaProject/CVE-2018-1270 https://github.com/Venscor/CVE-2018-1270 https://github.com/tafamace/CVE-2018-1270 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2018-4258247.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2018-4428296.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/103696 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2939 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4ed49b103f64a0cecb38064f26cbf1389afc12124653da2d35166dbe%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists& • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') CWE-358: Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard •
CVSS: 7.5EPSS: 0%CPEs: 9EXPL: 0CVE-2018-1199 – spring-framework: Improper URL path validation allows for bypassing of security checks on static resources
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2018-1199
Spring Security (Spring Security 4.1.x before 4.1.5, 4.2.x before 4.2.4, and 5.0.x before 5.0.1; and Spring Framework 4.3.x before 4.3.14 and 5.0.x before 5.0.3) does not consider URL path parameters when processing security constraints. By adding a URL path parameter with special encodings, an attacker may be able to bypass a security constraint. The root cause of this issue is a lack of clarity regarding the handling of path parameters in the Servlet Specification. Some Servlet containers include path parameters in the value returned for getPathInfo() and some do not. Spring Security uses the value returned by getPathInfo() as part of the process of mapping requests to security constraints. • https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:2405 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4ed49b103f64a0cecb38064f26cbf1389afc12124653da2d35166dbe%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ab825fcade0b49becfa30235b3d54f4a51bb74ea96b6c9adb5d1378c%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dcf8599b80e43a6b60482607adb76c64672772dc2d9209ae2170f369%40%3Cissues.activemq.apache.org%3E https://pivotal.io/security/cve-2018-1199 https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2020.html https://access.redhat.com& • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation •
CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 87%CPEs: 174EXPL: 1CVE-2017-5645 – log4j: Socket receiver deserialization vulnerability
https://notcve.org/view.php?id=CVE-2017-5645
In Apache Log4j 2.x before 2.8.2, when using the TCP socket server or UDP socket server to receive serialized log events from another application, a specially crafted binary payload can be sent that, when deserialized, can execute arbitrary code. En Apache Log4j 2.x en versiones anteriores a 2.8.2, cuando se utiliza el servidor de socket TCP o el servidor de socket UDP para recibir sucesos de registro serializados de otra aplicación, puede enviarse una carga binaria especialmente diseñada que, cuando se deserializa, puede ejecutar código arbitrario. It was found that when using remote logging with log4j socket server the log4j server would deserialize any log event received via TCP or UDP. An attacker could use this flaw to send a specially crafted log event that, during deserialization, would execute arbitrary code in the context of the logger application. • https://github.com/pimps/CVE-2017-5645 http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/12/19/2 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuapr2018-3678067.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujan2018-3236628.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpujul2018-4258247.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/security-advisory/cpuoct2018-4428296.html http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/97702 http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040200 http://www.securit • CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data •