| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A divide by zero vulnerability exists in ollama/ollama version v0.3.3. The vulnerability occurs when importing GGUF models with a crafted type for `block_count` in the Modelfile. This can lead to a denial of service (DoS) condition when the server processes the model, causing it to crash. |
| An issue was discovered in Ollama before 0.1.34. The CreateModelHandler function uses os.Open to read a file until completion. The req.Path parameter is user-controlled and can be set to /dev/random, which is blocking, causing the goroutine to run infinitely (even after the HTTP request is aborted by the client). |
| A Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') vulnerability in openSUSE libeconf leads to DoS via malformed config files.
This issue affects libeconf: before 0.5.2. |
| A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in ChestnutCMS up to 1.5.2. This affects the function uploadFile of the file /dev-api/cms/file/upload. The manipulation of the argument file leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in ChestnutCMS 1.5.2. This vulnerability affects the function renameFile of the file /cms/file/rename. The manipulation of the argument rename leads to path traversal. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| IP-COM EW9 V15.11.0.14(9732) was discovered to contain a command injection vulnerability in the formSetDebugCfg function. |
| IP-COM EW9 V15.11.0.14(9732) allows unauthenticated attackers to access sensitive information via the checkLoginUser, ate, telnet, version, setDebugCfg, and boot interfaces. |
| IP-COM EW9 V15.11.0.14(9732) was discovered to contain a buffer overflow in the formSetDebugCfg function. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted string. |
| An access control issue in the password reset page of IP-COM EW9 V15.11.0.14(9732) allows unauthenticated attackers to arbitrarily change the admin password. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in dzzoffice 2.02.1_SC_UTF8 allows attackers to arbitrarily create user accounts and grant Administrator rights to regular users. |
| Password Storage Application v1.0 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability via the Setup page. |
| Employee Record Management System v 1.2 is vulnerable to SQL Injection via editempprofile.php. |
| A vulnerability was found in Netgear JWNR2000v2 1.0.0.11. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function sub_435E04. The manipulation of the argument host leads to command injection. The attack may be launched remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| SourceCodester Simple Barangay Management System v1.0 has a SQL injection vulnerability in /barangay_management/admin/?page=view_clearance. |
| SourceCodester Simple Barangay Management System v1.0 has a SQL injection vulnerability in /barangay_management/admin/?page=view_complaint. |
| SourceCodester Simple Barangay Management System v1.0 has a SQL injection vulnerability in /barangay_management/admin/?page=view_household. |
| A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in Netgear EX6120 1.0.3.94. Affected by this issue is the function sub_30394. The manipulation of the argument host leads to buffer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Netgear EX6200 1.0.3.94. This affects the function sub_3C03C. The manipulation of the argument host leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| A vulnerability has been found in Netgear EX6200 1.0.3.94 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects the function sub_3C8EC. The manipulation of the argument host leads to buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| The OAuth implementation in workers-oauth-provider that is part of MCP framework https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-mcp , did not correctly validate that redirect_uri was on the allowed list of redirect URIs for the given client registration.
Fixed in: https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/pull/26 https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/pull/26
Impact:
Under certain circumstances (see below), if a victim had previously authorized with a server built on workers-oath-provider, and an attacker could later trick the victim into visiting a malicious web site, then attacker could potentially steal the victim's credentials to the same OAuth server and subsequently impersonate them.
In order for the attack to be possible, the OAuth server's authorized callback must be designed to auto-approve authorizations that appear to come from an OAuth client that the victim has authorized previously. The authorization flow is not implemented by workers-oauth-provider; it is up to the application built on top to decide whether to implement such automatic re-authorization. However, many applications do implement such logic.
Note: It is a basic, well-known requirement that OAuth servers should verify that the redirect URI is among the allowed list for the client, both during the authorization flow and subsequently when exchanging the authorization code for an access token. workers-oauth-provider implemented only the latter check, not the former. Unfortunately, the former is the much more important check. Readers who are familiar with OAuth may recognize that failing to check redirect URIs against the allowed list is a well-known, basic mistake, covered extensively in the RFC and elsewhere. The author of this library would like everyone to know that he was, in fact, well-aware of this requirement, thought about it a lot while designing the library, and then, somehow, forgot to actually make sure the check was in the code. That is, it's not that he didn't know what he was doing, it's that he knew what he was doing but flubbed it. |
