| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Flatpak is a system for building, distributing, and running sandboxed desktop applications on Linux. In versions prior to 1.10.4 and 1.12.0, Flatpak apps with direct access to AF_UNIX sockets such as those used by Wayland, Pipewire or pipewire-pulse can trick portals and other host-OS services into treating the Flatpak app as though it was an ordinary, non-sandboxed host-OS process. They can do this by manipulating the VFS using recent mount-related syscalls that are not blocked by Flatpak's denylist seccomp filter, in order to substitute a crafted `/.flatpak-info` or make that file disappear entirely. Flatpak apps that act as clients for AF_UNIX sockets such as those used by Wayland, Pipewire or pipewire-pulse can escalate the privileges that the corresponding services will believe the Flatpak app has. Note that protocols that operate entirely over the D-Bus session bus (user bus), system bus or accessibility bus are not affected by this. This is due to the use of a proxy process `xdg-dbus-proxy`, whose VFS cannot be manipulated by the Flatpak app, when interacting with these buses. Patches exist for versions 1.10.4 and 1.12.0, and as of time of publication, a patch for version 1.8.2 is being planned. There are no workarounds aside from upgrading to a patched version. |
| OMERO.web provides a web based client and plugin infrastructure. In versions prior to 5.11.0, a variety of templates do not perform proper sanitization through HTML escaping. Due to the lack of sanitization and use of ``jQuery.html()``, there are a whole host of cross-site scripting possibilities with specially crafted input to a variety of fields. This issue is patched in version 5.11.0. There are no known workarounds aside from upgrading. |
| Scrapy-splash is a library which provides Scrapy and JavaScript integration. In affected versions users who use [`HttpAuthMiddleware`](http://doc.scrapy.org/en/latest/topics/downloader-middleware.html#module-scrapy.downloadermiddlewares.httpauth) (i.e. the `http_user` and `http_pass` spider attributes) for Splash authentication will have any non-Splash request expose your credentials to the request target. This includes `robots.txt` requests sent by Scrapy when the `ROBOTSTXT_OBEY` setting is set to `True`. Upgrade to scrapy-splash 0.8.0 and use the new `SPLASH_USER` and `SPLASH_PASS` settings instead to set your Splash authentication credentials safely. If you cannot upgrade, set your Splash request credentials on a per-request basis, [using the `splash_headers` request parameter](https://github.com/scrapy-plugins/scrapy-splash/tree/0.8.x#http-basic-auth), instead of defining them globally using the [`HttpAuthMiddleware`](http://doc.scrapy.org/en/latest/topics/downloader-middleware.html#module-scrapy.downloadermiddlewares.httpauth). Alternatively, make sure all your requests go through Splash. That includes disabling the [robots.txt middleware](https://docs.scrapy.org/en/latest/topics/downloader-middleware.html#topics-dlmw-robots). |
| keypair is a a RSA PEM key generator written in javascript. keypair implements a lot of cryptographic primitives on its own or by borrowing from other libraries where possible, including node-forge. An issue was discovered where this library was generating identical RSA keys used in SSH. This would mean that the library is generating identical P, Q (and thus N) values which, in practical terms, is impossible with RSA-2048 keys. Generating identical values, repeatedly, usually indicates an issue with poor random number generation, or, poor handling of CSPRNG output. Issue 1: Poor random number generation (`GHSL-2021-1012`). The library does not rely entirely on a platform provided CSPRNG, rather, it uses it's own counter-based CMAC approach. Where things go wrong is seeding the CMAC implementation with "true" random data in the function `defaultSeedFile`. In order to seed the AES-CMAC generator, the library will take two different approaches depending on the JavaScript execution environment. In a browser, the library will use [`window.crypto.getRandomValues()`](https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L971). However, in a nodeJS execution environment, the `window` object is not defined, so it goes down a much less secure solution, also of which has a bug in it. It does look like the library tries to use node's CSPRNG when possible unfortunately, it looks like the `crypto` object is null because a variable was declared with the same name, and set to `null`. So the node CSPRNG path is never taken. However, when `window.crypto.getRandomValues()` is not available, a Lehmer LCG random number generator is used to seed the CMAC counter, and the LCG is seeded with `Math.random`. While this is poor and would likely qualify in a security bug in itself, it does not explain the extreme frequency in which duplicate keys occur. The main flaw: The output from the Lehmer LCG is encoded incorrectly. The specific [line][https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L1008] with the flaw is: `b.putByte(String.fromCharCode(next & 0xFF))` The [definition](https://github.com/juliangruber/keypair/blob/87c62f255baa12c1ec4f98a91600f82af80be6db/index.js#L350-L352) of `putByte` is `util.ByteBuffer.prototype.putByte = function(b) {this.data += String.fromCharCode(b);};`. Simplified, this is `String.fromCharCode(String.fromCharCode(next & 0xFF))`. The double `String.fromCharCode` is almost certainly unintentional and the source of weak seeding. Unfortunately, this does not result in an error. Rather, it results most of the buffer containing zeros. Since we are masking with 0xFF, we can determine that 97% of the output from the LCG are converted to zeros. The only outputs that result in meaningful values are outputs 48 through 57, inclusive. The impact is that each byte in the RNG seed has a 97% chance of being 0 due to incorrect conversion. When it is not, the bytes are 0 through 9. In summary, there are three immediate concerns: 1. The library has an insecure random number fallback path. Ideally the library would require a strong CSPRNG instead of attempting to use a LCG and `Math.random`. 2. The library does not correctly use a strong random number generator when run in NodeJS, even though a strong CSPRNG is available. 3. The fallback path has an issue in the implementation where a majority of the seed data is going to effectively be zero. Due to the poor random number generation, keypair generates RSA keys that are relatively easy to guess. This could enable an attacker to decrypt confidential messages or gain authorized access to an account belonging to the victim. |
| The NetFlow Analyzer in Zoho ManageEngine OpManger before 125455 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the Attacks Module API. |
| Gajim 1.2.x and 1.3.x before 1.3.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted XMPP Last Message Correction (XEP-0308) message in multi-user chat, where the message ID equals the correction ID. |
| A relative path traversal in FortiWeb versions 6.4.1, 6.4.0, and 6.3.0 through 6.3.15 may allow an authenticated attacker to retrieve arbitrary files from the underlying filesystem via specially crafted web requests. |
| A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote authentication bypass vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote authentication bypass vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote SQL injection vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote SQL injection vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote disclosure of sensitive information vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote disclosure of sensitive information vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A local escalation of privilege vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote directory traversal vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
| A remote arbitrary command execution vulnerability was discovered in Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager version(s): ClearPass Policy Manager 6.10.x prior to 6.10.2 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.9.x prior to 6.9.7-HF1 - - ClearPass Policy Manager 6.8.x prior to 6.8.9-HF1. Aruba has released patches for ClearPass Policy Manager that address this security vulnerability. |
