A flaw was found in Python, specifically within the urllib.parse module. This module helps break Uniform Resource Locator (URL) strings into components. The issue involves how the urlparse method does not sanitize input and allows characters like '\r' and '\n' in the URL path. This flaw allows an attacker to input a crafted URL, leading to injection attacks. This flaw affects Python versions prior to 3.10.0b1, 3.9.5, 3.8.11, 3.7.11 and 3.6.14.

CA Harvest Software Change Manager versions 13.0.3, 13.0.4, 14.0.0, and 14.0.1, contain a vulnerability in the CSV export functionality, due to insufficient input validation, that can allow a privileged user to potentially execute arbitrary code or commands.

In Spring Framework versions 5.3.0 - 5.3.10, 5.2.0 - 5.2.17, and older unsupported versions, it is possible for a user to provide malicious input to cause the insertion of additional log entries.

Hitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 Agent 9 through 12 calls the SendMessageTimeoutW API with arbitrary arguments via a local pipe, leading to a local privilege escalation vulnerability. An attacker who exploits this issue could execute arbitrary code on the local system.

Hitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 Agent 9 through 12 contains a remote code execution vulnerability because of an Integer Overflow. An attacker with network access to port 31016 may exploit this issue to execute code with unrestricted privileges on the underlying OS.

The del_reistered_domains AJAX action of the Software License Manager WordPress plugin before 4.5.1 does not have any CSRF checks, and is vulnerable to a CSRF attack

A vulnerability in the web UI of Cisco Smart Software Manager On-Prem (SSM On-Prem) could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to elevate privileges and create, read, update, or delete records and settings in multiple functions. This vulnerability is due to insufficient authorization of the System User and System Operator role capabilities. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by directly accessing a web resource. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to create, read, update, or delete records and settings in multiple functions without the necessary permissions on the web UI.

The Software License Manager WordPress plugin before 4.4.8 does not sanitise or escape the edit_record parameter before outputting it back in the page in the admin dashboard, leading to a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting issue

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…

In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. This can lead to a buffer overflow when EVP_PKEY_decrypt() is called by the application a second time with a buffer that is too small. A malicious attacker who is able present SM2 content for decryption to an application could cause attacker chosen data …