| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Dell PowerStore contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability, potentially leading to privilege escalation to root on the appliance. |
| A improper neutralization of argument delimiters in a command ('argument injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiMail 8.0.0 through 8.0.2, FortiMail 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiMail 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiMail 7.2 all versions may allow an authenticated remote attacker with domain admin or admin privileges to delete users of other tenant domains on a paired FortiAuthenticator, execute arbitrary code as root or arbitrary CLI commands, and read or write arbitrary files as root via crafted HTTP requests to the administrative interface. |
| A improper neutralization of argument delimiters in a command ('argument injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiMail 8.0.0 through 8.0.2, FortiMail 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiMail 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiMail 7.2 all versions may allow an authenticated remote attacker with domain admin or admin privileges to delete users of other tenant domains on a paired FortiAuthenticator, execute arbitrary code as root or arbitrary CLI commands, and read or write arbitrary files as root via crafted HTTP requests to the administrative interface. |
| A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12, FortiManager 8.0.0, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.0, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an authenticated administrator to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted requests |
| A authorization bypass through user-controlled key vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an authenticated attacker to execute commands outside of the expected scope via specially crafted HTTP request. |
| A authentication bypass by spoofing vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an attacker to disrupt the HA state. |
| A improper control of generation of code ('code injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11 may allow an authenticated administrator to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted requests. |
| Integer overflow in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.78 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| Use after free in ServiceWorker in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.78 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Critical) |
| Use after free in Frames in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.78 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| Use after free in Animation in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.78 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| Buffer overflow in Turbolev in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.78 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| Dell PowerStore contains a content-injection vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to display misleading text on the genuine login page for phishing. |
| Off-by-one error in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 157.0.8103.78 allowed a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| A buffer overflow in handling EDID Display-Range descriptors in X.Org xwayland before 24.1.15 and X Server before 21.1.26 could be used by malicious monitors to crash the x server or execute cote. |
| In gittuf 0.10.0 through 0.15.0, when a minimum threshold global rule and a policy rule protect the same namespace, verification gives the global rule's check over all trusted users in the policy precedence over the policy rule's own authorized users. A user listed in the policy file but not authorized by the policy rule, or fewer users than the rule's threshold, can make changes to the protected namespace that pass verification. |
| In gittuf 0.4.0 through 0.16.0, when a policy update appears within the range of reference state log entries being verified, verification checks only the root of trust signatures of the new policy and not the signatures of its other metadata (rule files). A user trusted to push to the repository who bypasses gittuf policy apply and writes the policy reference and reference state log directly can make an invalid policy apply during verification, weakening or strengthening the rules for later changes. The update is still recorded in the reference state log. |
| In gittuf 0.10.0 through 0.17.0, the verification workflow does not load policy updates that are propagated from an upstream (controller) repository and recorded in the reference state log after the first entry being verified. Only the propagated policy in effect at the start of verification is applied, so later controller changes to global rules, such as threshold requirements and force-push blocks, are ignored and changes that these rules should block pass verification. |
| In gittuf before 0.18.0, verification of file protection rules uses the quoted, escaped pathnames that Git prints by default for files with special characters (for example non-ASCII characters) instead of the raw paths. Such paths do not match patterns like file:internal/*, so the files are treated as unprotected, and a user who is not authorized by a file protection rule can change a protected file whose name contains special characters and still pass verification. |
| RBH Access Technologies Integra32 Security Management System 5.1.11 R5.0 contains an unauthenticated deserialization vulnerability in its deprecated .NET Remoting service, exposed on TCP port 2001 via the AxcvcLt.dll library using BinaryServerFormatterSinkProvider at TypeFilterLevel.Full without requiring authentication. A remote unauthenticated attacker can send a malicious serialized gadget payload (such as a ysoserial.net TypeConfuseDelegate chain) to the IntegraURI object endpoint, or exploit MarshalByRefObject/MarshalByValue unmarshalling for arbitrary file read/write and SMB/NTLMv2 credential coercion, to achieve remote code execution as NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM and fully compromise the host. |
