| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A flaw was found in the IPv4 Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) classifier in the Linux kernel. The xprt pointer may go beyond the linear part of the skb, leading to an out-of-bounds read in the `rsvp_classify` function. This issue may allow a local user to crash the system and cause a denial of service. |
| A vulnerability was found in Samba's SMB2 packet signing mechanism. The SMB2 packet signing is not enforced if an admin configured "server signing = required" or for SMB2 connections to Domain Controllers where SMB2 packet signing is mandatory. This flaw allows an attacker to perform attacks, such as a man-in-the-middle attack, by intercepting the network traffic and modifying the SMB2 messages between client and server, affecting the integrity of the data. |
| The Greenshift – animation and page builder blocks plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 13.2.2 via the 'img (or any key the publisher references in {{GET:key}})' parameter. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract authenticated users' HttpOnly WordPress session cookies, specifically wordpress_logged_in_* tokens, by injecting a nested {{COOKIE:}} placeholder via a GET parameter that causes the victim's browser to transmit the cookie value to an attacker-controlled host as an image src URL. Exploitation requires that a site publisher has configured a public GreenShift Element image block whose src attribute contains a {{GET:}} placeholder, and that a logged-in user can be induced to open the attacker's crafted link — neither condition is part of the plugin's default state. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 could allow a remote attacker to gain full administrative control due to the use of a cryptographically weak pseudo-random number generator. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to a server-side request forgery vulnerability. |
| IBM API Connect 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to access internal network resources and obtain sensitive information due to server-side request forgery. A protection that blocks requests to internal addresses can be bypassed, so the server could be made to contact internal services and return part of their responses. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a network-positioned attacker to intercept backup data due to improper verification of the backup server's identity. The identity of the backup server is not verified when the secure connection for analytics backups is established, which could allow backup data, and credentials if used, to be intercepted. |
| IBM API Connect 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow an authenticated privileged attacker to send unauthorized requests from the system due to server-side request forgery. This could be used to enumerate network resources or to support further attacks. |
| IBM API Connect 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow an authenticated attacker to gain unauthorized access due to improper authorization. Tenant context is not sufficiently verified against the authenticated user, which could allow access to another tenant's resources. |
| IBM API Connect 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information and modify API configurations due to improper authentication. Identity information supplied in requests is not sufficiently verified, which could allow a caller to impersonate another user. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to server-side request forgery. The affected component can be made to send requests to unintended destinations and return the response to the attacker. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow an authenticated attacker to view, add, modify, or delete information in the back-end database due to SQL injection. Input is not properly neutralized before it is used in database queries. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to access and modify other tenants' portal data due to improper neutralization of argument delimiters. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements in an OS command. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands due to SQL injection. Values received during sign-in are not properly neutralized before being used in a database query, which could allow SQL commands to run. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to server-side request forgery. Address checks can be bypassed, which could allow the server to reach destinations that should be blocked. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to broken object-level authorization. Access checks on keystore objects do not confirm that the requesting user is permitted to read them, which could expose keystore information. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to server-side request forgery. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to gain full administrative control due to the use of hard-coded credentials. |
| IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to OS command injection. User-supplied input is not properly neutralized before it is passed to the operating system, which could allow commands to run on the underlying host. |
