| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Incus is a system container and virtual machine manager. In versions 6.20.0 and below, a user with the ability to launch a container with a custom YAML configuration (e.g a member of the ‘incus’ group) can create an environment variable containing newlines, which can be used to add additional configuration items in the container’s lxc.conf due to newline injection. This can allow adding arbitrary lifecycle hooks, ultimately resulting in arbitrary command execution on the host. Exploiting this issue on IncusOS requires a slight modification of the payload to change to a different writable directory for the validation step (e.g /tmp). This can be confirmed with a second container with /tmp mounted from the host (A privileged action for validation only). A fix is planned for versions 6.0.6
and 6.21.0, but they have not been released at the time of publication. |
| Rekor is a software supply chain transparency log. In versions 1.4.3 and below, the entry implementation can panic on attacker-controlled input when canonicalizing a proposed entry with an empty spec.message, causing nil Pointer Dereference. Function validate() returns nil (success) when message is empty, leaving sign1Msg uninitialized, and Canonicalize() later dereferences v.sign1Msg.Payload. A malformed proposed entry of the cose/v0.0.1 type can cause a panic on a thread within the Rekor process. The thread is recovered so the client receives a 500 error message and service still continues, so the availability impact of this is minimal. This issue has been fixed in version 1.5.0. |
| Gitea does not properly validate repository ownership when linking attachments to releases. An attachment uploaded to a private repository could potentially be linked to a release in a different public repository, making it accessible to unauthorized users. |
| Gitea does not properly validate ownership when toggling OpenID URI visibility. An authenticated user may be able to change the visibility settings of other users' OpenID identities. |
| Gitea does not properly validate repository ownership when deleting Git LFS locks. A user with write access to one repository may be able to delete LFS locks belonging to other repositories. |
| Gitea does not properly verify authorization when canceling scheduled auto-merges via the web interface. A user with read access to pull requests may be able to cancel auto-merges scheduled by other users. |
| Gitea's stopwatch API does not re-validate repository access permissions. After a user's access to a private repository is revoked, they may still view issue titles and repository names through previously started stopwatches. |
| Gitea's notification API does not re-validate repository access permissions when returning notification details. After a user's access to a private repository is revoked, they may still view issue and pull request titles through previously received notifications. |
| Gitea does not properly validate project ownership in organization project operations. A user with project write access in one organization may be able to modify projects belonging to a different organization. |
| Gitea does not properly verify repository context when deleting attachments. A user who previously uploaded an attachment to a repository may be able to delete it after losing access to that repository by making the request through a different repository they can access. |
| An Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Hubitat Elevation home automation controllers prior to version 2.4.2.157 could allow a remote authenticated user to control connected devices outside of their authorized scope via client-side request manipulation. |
| Gitea may send release notification emails for private repositories to users whose access has been revoked. When a repository is changed from public to private, users who previously watched the repository may continue to receive release notifications, potentially disclosing release titles, tags, and content. |
| A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability was identified in a parameter in Omada Controllers due to improper input sanitization. Exploitation requires advanced conditions, such as network positioning or emulating a trusted entity, and user interaction by an authenticated administrator. If successful, an attacker could execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator’s browser, potentially exposing sensitive information and compromising confidentiality. |
| A low-privileged user can bypass account credentials without confirming the user's current authentication state, which may lead to unauthorized privilege escalation. |
| The web application does not sufficiently verify inputs that are assumed to be immutable but are actually externally controllable. A low-privileged user can modify the parameters and potentially manipulate account-level privileges. |
| vCenter Server contains a heap-overflow vulnerability in the implementation of the DCERPC protocol. A malicious actor with network access to vCenter Server may trigger this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted network packet potentially leading to remote code execution. |
| Tenda D151 and D301 routers contain an unauthenticated configuration download vulnerability that allows remote attackers to retrieve router configuration files. Attackers can send a request to /goform/getimage endpoint to download configuration data including admin credentials without authentication. |
| OpenEMR 5.0.2.1 contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to inject malicious JavaScript through user profile parameters. Attackers can exploit the vulnerability by crafting a malicious payload to download and execute a web shell, enabling remote command execution on the vulnerable OpenEMR instance. |
| Moodle 3.10.3 contains a persistent cross-site scripting vulnerability in the calendar event subtitle field that allows attackers to inject malicious scripts. Attackers can craft a calendar event with malicious JavaScript in the subtitle track label to execute arbitrary code when users view the event. |
| Successful exploitation of the SQL injection vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the vulnerable service when it is exposed to the Internet. |
