Show filters
29 Total Results
Displaying 11-20 of 29
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2020-27650

Disclosure Date: October 29, 2020 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-2 does not set the Secure flag for the session cookie in an HTTPS session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an HTTP session.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2020-27652

Disclosure Date: October 29, 2020 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Algorithm downgrade vulnerability in QuickConnect in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-2 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2020-27648

Disclosure Date: October 29, 2020 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Improper certificate validation vulnerability in OpenVPN client in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-2 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2019-14907

Disclosure Date: December 10, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
All samba versions 4.9.x before 4.9.18, 4.10.x before 4.10.12 and 4.11.x before 4.11.5 have an issue where if it is set with "log level = 3" (or above) then the string obtained from the client, after a failed character conversion, is printed. Such strings can be provided during the NTLMSSP authentication exchange. In the Samba AD DC in particular, this may cause a long-lived process(such as the RPC server) to terminate. (In the file server case, the most likely target, smbd, operates as process-per-client and so a crash there is harmless).
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2019-9515

Disclosure Date: August 13, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
Attacker Value
Unknown

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leadin…

Disclosure Date: August 13, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2019-9514

Disclosure Date: August 13, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2019-9513

Disclosure Date: August 13, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2019-9518

Disclosure Date: August 13, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU.
Attacker Value
Unknown

CVE-2019-9511

Disclosure Date: August 13, 2019 (last updated January 15, 2025)
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.