22 results (0.027 seconds)

CVSS: 7.4EPSS: 0%CPEs: 56EXPL: 0

ASN.1 strings are represented internally within OpenSSL as an ASN1_STRING structure which contains a buffer holding the string data and a field holding the buffer length. This contrasts with normal C strings which are repesented as a buffer for the string data which is terminated with a NUL (0) byte. Although not a strict requirement, ASN.1 strings that are parsed using OpenSSL's own "d2i" functions (and other similar parsing functions) as well as any string whose value has been set with the ASN1_STRING_set() function will additionally NUL terminate the byte array in the ASN1_STRING structure. However, it is possible for applications to directly construct valid ASN1_STRING structures which do not NUL terminate the byte array by directly setting the "data" and "length" fields in the ASN1_STRING array. This can also happen by using the ASN1_STRING_set0() function. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/08/26/2 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-244969.pdf https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=94d23fcff9b2a7a8368dfe52214d5c2569882c11 https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=ccb0a11145ee72b042d10593a64eaf9e8a55ec12 https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=SB10366 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r18995de860f0e63635f3008f • CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read •

CVSS: 9.8EPSS: 6%CPEs: 42EXPL: 0

In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. • http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/08/26/2 https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-389290.pdf https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git%3Ba=commitdiff%3Bh=59f5e75f3bced8fc0e130d72a3f582cf7b480b46 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r18995de860f0e63635f3008fd2a6aca82394249476d21691e7c59c9e%40%3Cdev.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rad5d9f83f0d11fb3f8bb148d179b8a9ad7c6a17f18d70e5805a713d1%40%3Cdev.tomcat.apache.org%3E https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202209-02 https://security.ge • CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write •

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: 7.4EPSS: 1%CPEs: 42EXPL: 2

Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20. Un ataque de contaminación de prototipo cuando se utiliza _.zipObjectDeep en lodash versiones anteriores a 4.17.20 A flaw was found in nodejs-lodash in versions 4.17.15 and earlier. A prototype pollution attack is possible which can lead to arbitrary code execution. The primary threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity and system availability. WordPress Core is vulnerable to prototype pollution in various versions less than 5.8.1 due to a vulnerability in the LoDash component which is identified as CVE-2020-8203. • https://github.com/ossf-cve-benchmark/CVE-2020-8203 https://github.com/lodash/lodash/issues/4874 https://hackerone.com/reports/712065 https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20200724-0006 https://www.oracle.com//security-alerts/cpujul2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuApr2021.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujan2022.html https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuoct2021.html https://access.redhat. • CWE-20: Improper Input Validation CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling CWE-1321: Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution') •