Show filters
91 Total Results
Displaying 11-20 of 91
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0859

Disclosure Date: March 23, 2022 (last updated November 16, 2023)
McAfee Enterprise ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) prior to 5.10 Update 13 allows a local attacker to point an ePO server to an arbitrary SQL server during the restoration of the ePO server. To achieve this the attacker would have to be logged onto the server hosting the ePO server (restricted to administrators) and to know the SQL server password.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0858

Disclosure Date: March 23, 2022 (last updated November 16, 2023)
A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in McAfee Enterprise ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) prior to 5.10 Update 13 allows a remote attacker to potentially obtain access to an ePO administrator's session by convincing the attacker to click on a carefully crafted link. This would lead to limited ability to alter some information in ePO due to the area of the User Interface the vulnerability is present in.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0857

Disclosure Date: March 23, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
A reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in McAfee Enterprise ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) prior to 5.10 Update 13 allows a remote attacker to potentially obtain access to an ePO administrator's session by convincing the attacker to click on a carefully crafted link. This would lead to limited access to sensitive information and limited ability to alter some information in ePO due to the area of the User Interface the vulnerability is present in.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2022-0842

Disclosure Date: March 23, 2022 (last updated October 07, 2023)
A blind SQL injection vulnerability in McAfee Enterprise ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) prior to 5.10 Update 13 allows a remote authenticated attacker to potentially obtain information from the ePO database. The data obtained is dependent on the privileges the attacker has and to obtain sensitive data the attacker would require administrator privileges.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-31835

Disclosure Date: October 22, 2021 (last updated February 23, 2025)
Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) prior to 5.10 Update 11 allows ePO administrators to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a specific parameter where the administrator's entries were not correctly sanitized.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-31834

Disclosure Date: October 22, 2021 (last updated February 23, 2025)
Stored Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) prior to 5.10 Update 11 allows ePO administrators to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via multiple parameters where the administrator's entries were not correctly sanitized.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-3712

Disclosure Date: August 24, 2021 (last updated February 23, 2025)
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. Numerous OpenSSL functions that print ASN.1 data have been found to assume that the ASN1_STRING byte array will be NUL termi…
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-2432

Disclosure Date: July 21, 2021 (last updated November 28, 2024)
Vulnerability in the Java SE product of Oracle Java SE (component: JNDI). The supported version that is affected is Java SE: 7u301. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via multiple protocols to compromise Java SE. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a partial denial of service (partial DOS) of Java SE. Note: This vulnerability applies to Java deployments, typically in clients running sandboxed Java Web Start applications or sandboxed Java applets, that load and run untrusted code (e.g., code that comes from the internet) and rely on the Java sandbox for security. This vulnerability can also be exploited by using APIs in the specified Component, e.g., through a web service which supplies data to the APIs. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 3.7 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L).
0
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-30639

Disclosure Date: July 12, 2021 (last updated February 23, 2025)
A vulnerability in Apache Tomcat allows an attacker to remotely trigger a denial of service. An error introduced as part of a change to improve error handling during non-blocking I/O meant that the error flag associated with the Request object was not reset between requests. This meant that once a non-blocking I/O error occurred, all future requests handled by that request object would fail. Users were able to trigger non-blocking I/O errors, e.g. by dropping a connection, thereby creating the possibility of triggering a DoS. Applications that do not use non-blocking I/O are not exposed to this vulnerability. This issue affects Apache Tomcat 10.0.3 to 10.0.4; 9.0.44; 8.5.64.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2021-33037

Disclosure Date: July 12, 2021 (last updated February 23, 2025)
Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding.