A security regression (CVE-2006-5051) was discovered in OpenSSH's server (sshd). There is a race condition which can lead sshd to handle some signals in an unsafe manner. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may be able to trigger it by failing to authenticate within a set time period.

An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt before 2019.2.4 and 3000 before 3000.2. The salt-master process ClearFuncs class does not properly validate method calls. This allows a remote user to access some methods without authentication. These methods can be used to retrieve user tokens from the salt master and/or run arbitrary commands on salt minions.

Heap buffer overflow in Freetype in Google Chrome prior to 86.0.4240.111 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.

A flaw was found in grub2, prior to version 2.06. An attacker may use the GRUB 2 flaw to hijack and tamper the GRUB verification process. This flaw also allows the bypass of Secure Boot protections. In order to load an untrusted or modified kernel, an attacker would first need to establish access to the system such as gaining physical access, obtain the ability to alter a pxe-boot network, or have remote access to a networked system with root access. With this access, an attacker could then craft a string to cause a buffer overflow by injecting a malicious payload that leads to arbitrary code execution within GRUB. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.

The avatar feature in Grafana 3.0.1 through 7.0.1 has an SSRF Incorrect Access Control issue. This vulnerability allows any unauthenticated user/client to make Grafana send HTTP requests to any URL and return its result to the user/client. This can be used to gain information about the network that Grafana is running on. Furthermore, passing invalid URL objects could be used for DOS'ing Grafana via SegFault.

A local privilege escalation vulnerability was found on polkit's pkexec utility. The pkexec application is a setuid tool designed to allow unprivileged users to run commands as privileged users according predefined policies. The current version of pkexec doesn't handle the calling parameters count correctly and ends trying to execute environment variables as commands. An attacker can leverage this by crafting environment variables in such a way it'll induce pkexec to execute arbitrary code. When successfully executed the attack can cause a local privilege escalation given unprivileged users administrative rights on the target machine.

In Sudo before 1.8.28, an attacker with access to a Runas ALL sudoer account can bypass certain policy blacklists and session PAM modules, and can cause incorrect logging, by invoking sudo with a crafted user ID. For example, this allows bypass of !root configuration, and USER= logging, for a "sudo -u \#$((0xffffffff))" command.

Apache HTTP server 2.4.32 to 2.4.44 mod_proxy_uwsgi info disclosure and possible RCE

jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype.

When using the Apache JServ Protocol (AJP), care must be taken when trusting incoming connections to Apache Tomcat. Tomcat treats AJP connections as having higher trust than, for example, a similar HTTP connection. If such connections are available to an attacker, they can be exploited in ways that may be surprising. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99, Tomcat shipped with an AJP Connector enabled by default that listened on all configured IP addresses. It was expected (and recommended in the security guide) that this Connector would be disabled if not required. This vulnerability report identified a mechanism that allowed: - returning arbitrary files from anywhere in the web application - processing any file in the web application as a JSP Further, if the web application allowed file upload and stored those files within the web application (or the attacker was able to control the content of the web application by some other means) then this, alo…