IBM Notes and Domino 8.5.x before 8.5.3 FP6 IF3 and 9.x before 9.0.1 FP1 on 32-bit Linux platforms use incorrect gcc options, which makes it easier for remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by leveraging the absence of the NX protection mechanism and placing crafted x86 code on the stack, aka SPR KLYH9GGS9W.

Buffer overflow in the .mdb parser in Autonomy KeyView IDOL, as used in IBM Notes 8.5.x before 8.5.3 FP4, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted file, aka SPR KLYH92XL3W.

Integer overflow in IBM Notes 8.5.x before 8.5.3 FP4 Interim Fix 1 and 9.x before 9.0 Interim Fix 1 on Windows, and 8.5.x before 8.5.3 FP5 and 9.x before 9.0.1 on Linux, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a malformed PNG image in a previewed e-mail message, aka SPR NPEI96K82Q.

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Lotus Notes 8.x before 8.5.3 FP4 Interim Fix 1 and 9.0 before Interim Fix 1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a SCRIPT element in an HTML e-mail message, aka SPRs JMOY95BLM6 and JMOY95BN49.

IBM Lotus Notes 8.x before 8.5.3 FP4 Interim Fix 1 and 9.0 before Interim Fix 1 does not block APPLET elements in HTML e-mail, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended restrictions on Java code execution and X-Confirm-Reading-To functionality via a crafted message, aka SPRs JMOY95BLM6 and JMOY95BN49.

Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the JRE component in IBM Java 7 SR2 and earlier, Java 6.0.1 SR3 and earlier, Java 6 SR11 and earlier, Java 5 SR14 and earlier, and Java 142 SR13 FP13 and earlier; as used in IBM Rational Host On-Demand, Rational Change, Tivoli Monitoring, Smart Analytics System 5600, Tivoli Remote Control 5.1.2, WebSphere Real Time, Lotus Notes & Domino, Tivoli Storage Productivity Center, and Service Deliver Manager; and other products from other vendors such as Red Hat, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors related to "insecure use [of] multiple methods in the java.lang.class class."

Unspecified vulnerability in the JRE component in IBM Java 7 SR2 and earlier, Java 6.0.1 SR3 and earlier, Java 6 SR11 and earlier, Java 5 SR14 and earlier, and Java 142 SR13 FP13 and earlier; as used in IBM Rational Host On-Demand, Rational Change, Tivoli Monitoring, Smart Analytics System 5600, Tivoli Remote Control 5.1.2, WebSphere Real Time, Lotus Notes & Domino, Tivoli Storage Productivity Center, and Service Deliver Manager; and other products from other vendors such as Red Hat, when running under a security manager, allows remote attackers to gain privileges by modifying or removing the security manager via vectors related to "insecure use of the java.lang.reflect.Method invoke() method."

Unspecified vulnerability in the JRE component in IBM Java 7 SR2 and earlier, Java 6.0.1 SR3 and earlier, Java 6 SR11 and earlier, Java 5 SR14 and earlier, and Java 142 SR13 FP13 and earlier; as used in IBM Rational Host On-Demand, Rational Change, Tivoli Monitoring, Smart Analytics System 5600, Tivoli Remote Control 5.1.2, WebSphere Real Time, Lotus Notes & Domino, Tivoli Storage Productivity Center, and Service Deliver Manager; and other products from other vendors such as Red Hat, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors related to "insecure use of the java.lang.ClassLoder defineClass() method."

Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the JRE component in IBM Java 7 SR2 and earlier, Java 6.0.1 SR3 and earlier, Java 6 SR11 and earlier, Java 5 SR14 and earlier, and Java 142 SR13 FP13 and earlier; as used in IBM Rational Host On-Demand, Rational Change, Tivoli Monitoring, Smart Analytics System 5600, Tivoli Remote Control 5.1.2, WebSphere Real Time, Lotus Notes & Domino, Tivoli Storage Productivity Center, and Service Deliver Manager; and other products from other vendors such as Red Hat, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via "insecure use" of the (1) java.lang.Class getDeclaredMethods or nd (2) java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject setAccessible() methods.

IBM Lotus Notes 8.5.x before 8.5.3 FP3 does not include the HTTPOnly flag in a Set-Cookie header for a web-application cookie, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive information via script access to this cookie, aka SPRs JMAS7TRNLN and SRAO8U3Q68.