Show filters
8 Total Results
Displaying 1-8 of 8
Sort by:
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2023-44487
Disclosure Date: October 10, 2023 (last updated June 28, 2024)
The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.
1
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2022-4974
Disclosure Date: October 16, 2024 (last updated October 16, 2024)
The Freemius SDK, as used by hundreds of WordPress plugin and theme developers, was vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery and Information disclosure due to missing capability checks and nonce protection on the _get_debug_log, _get_db_option, and the _set_db_option functions in versions up to, and including 2.4.2. Any WordPress plugin or theme running a version of Freemius less than 2.4.3 is vulnerable.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2022-4257
Disclosure Date: December 01, 2022 (last updated October 08, 2023)
A vulnerability was found in C-DATA Web Management System. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file cgi-bin/jumpto.php of the component GET Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument hostname leads to argument injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-214631.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2021-45105
Disclosure Date: December 18, 2021 (last updated February 23, 2025)
Apache Log4j2 versions 2.0-alpha1 through 2.16.0 (excluding 2.12.3 and 2.3.1) did not protect from uncontrolled recursion from self-referential lookups. This allows an attacker with control over Thread Context Map data to cause a denial of service when a crafted string is interpreted. This issue was fixed in Log4j 2.17.0, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2019-1559
Disclosure Date: February 26, 2019 (last updated November 08, 2023)
If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. If the application then behaves differently based on that in a way that is detectable to the remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Stitched ciphersuites are optimised implementations of certain commonly used ciphersuites. Also the application must call SSL_shutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2r (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2q).
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2017-7658
Disclosure Date: June 26, 2018 (last updated November 08, 2023)
In Eclipse Jetty Server, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all non HTTP/1.x configurations), and 9.4.x (all HTTP/1.x configurations), when presented with two content-lengths headers, Jetty ignored the second. When presented with a content-length and a chunked encoding header, the content-length was ignored (as per RFC 2616). If an intermediary decided on the shorter length, but still passed on the longer body, then body content could be interpreted by Jetty as a pipelined request. If the intermediary was imposing authorization, the fake pipelined request would bypass that authorization.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2017-7657
Disclosure Date: June 26, 2018 (last updated November 08, 2023)
In Eclipse Jetty, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all configurations), and 9.4.x (non-default configuration with RFC2616 compliance enabled), transfer-encoding chunks are handled poorly. The chunk length parsing was vulnerable to an integer overflow. Thus a large chunk size could be interpreted as a smaller chunk size and content sent as chunk body could be interpreted as a pipelined request. If Jetty was deployed behind an intermediary that imposed some authorization and that intermediary allowed arbitrarily large chunks to be passed on unchanged, then this flaw could be used to bypass the authorization imposed by the intermediary as the fake pipelined request would not be interpreted by the intermediary as a request.
0
Attacker Value
Unknown
CVE-2018-3639
Disclosure Date: May 22, 2018 (last updated November 26, 2024)
Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and speculative execution of memory reads before the addresses of all prior memory writes are known may allow unauthorized disclosure of information to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis, aka Speculative Store Bypass (SSB), Variant 4.
0