| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the diagnostic execution utility of Brocade Fabric OS versions before 10.0.1. When processing command arguments for diagnostic operations, the utility tokenizes user-supplied input into an internal argument array without enforcing boundary checks on the maximum array capacity. An authenticated user with administrative access can exploit this vulnerability by supplying a crafted diagnostic command string containing an excessive number of tokenized arguments. This leads to a memory overwrite resulting in a denial of service (process crash). |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of a specified quantity. |
| On a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway cluster with database replication enabled, a party trusted by the cluster could submit a crafted serialized object that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing code execution as the gateway service account. Replication is disabled by default, and exploitation requires control of a trusted cluster peer or administrative access to the appliance. |
| An optional, separately licensed repository-connector feature in Kiteworks Core did not neutralize special characters in a user-supplied path before passing it to an external command. An authenticated system administrator could inject additional commands and write arbitrary content to files owned by the service account running the connector, enabling code execution in that account's context; exploitation additionally requires network egress from the appliance to a system under the attacker's control. |
| The Database Addon For WPForms ( wpforms entries ) WordPress plugin before 1.1.1 does not verify the CSRF nonce when the field is omitted and performs no capability check of its own, allowing attackers to delete arbitrary stored form entries by tricking a logged-in administrator into loading a crafted page. |
| Inefficient algorithmic complexity in the REST API (6.3.3 through 6.3.5) and the IMAP PREVIEW response (6.2.22 through 6.3.5) of Progressive Robot hMailServer allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to make the webmail, the administration console and the REST API unavailable by sending a message. To show a snippet of each message in a folder's message list, the server decoded the character entity references of a message that has an HTML part and no text part with a string replacement whose work grew with the square of their number. A received HTML-only message holding a very large number of entity references therefore keeps one of the listener's four worker threads busy for minutes or longer each time the recipient's webmail lists the folder, without the message being opened, so that a few such listings leave the HTTP listener unable to answer anybody. The IMAP PREVIEW response read such text the same way, holding an IMAP thread for each client that asks for the preview of such a message. The flaw is in the server's shared string class, whose replace and remove both ran in quadratic time. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code execution as the gateway service account. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account. |
| A user-provisioning interface in Kiteworks Core did not verify that the requesting administrator was entitled to grant the role being assigned. An administrator whose delegated permissions covered role changes alone could therefore raise an account to full system-administrator privileges. |
| An identity-verification weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed the gateway to act on the Kiteworks platform on behalf of a user it had not authenticated, and to provision a platform account for an identity it did not already know. A remote, unauthenticated sender could potentially exploit this to obtain control of a platform account. |
| An XML parser used by Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not restrict external entity references. Where an optional, non-default message-processing feature is enabled, a remote and unauthenticated sender could potentially use a crafted message to read files accessible to the gateway service account, including cryptographic key material and credentials, and have them sent to a destination they control. |
| The sandbox that isolates document conversion on a Kiteworks appliance did not fully confine the code running inside it. Code already executing within that sandbox could potentially escape its confinement and act with the privileges of the service account that runs the application, which could allow an attacker in that position to read or modify application data and configuration, or to disrupt the service on the affected appliance. |
| A Kiteworks appliance setup interface did not enforce authentication once the appliance had completed initial configuration. An unauthenticated attacker with network access to the appliance could read and modify a limited set of setup records, including a contact name and email address captured during initial configuration. |
| A form-rendering interface in the Advanced Forms component is reachable without authentication so that published forms can be displayed to anonymous visitors, but it returned more data than the form itself required. Anyone who knew the web address of a published form could potentially retrieve the form owner's Kiteworks account profile, including personal details, along with parts of the deployment's configuration settings; no passwords, authentication tokens, or multi-factor secrets were exposed. |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. |
| A SQL injection vulnerability existed in Kiteworks Secure Data Forms, where a value derived from the authenticated user's stored account data was incorporated into a database query without proper sanitization. An authenticated user could potentially influence that value to inject SQL. Exploitation requires an authenticated session and applies only to deployments where a specific optional feature is in use. |
| An authenticated administrator of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could submit a crafted serialized object to a cluster management interface that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution in the context of the gateway service account. Exploitation requires an administrator account holding a specific queue-management privilege. |
| Improper authentication in a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrative service. An administrative service in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not consistently enforce administrator authentication, so the required password check could be bypassed. An attacker who referenced a valid administrator account could potentially create, modify, or delete internal users and managed domains and change their security-feature configuration without authenticating; deleting a managed domain also removes its user accounts and could lock administrators out of the gateway. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
