| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. From 1.7.0 until 1.11.4, net.jpountz.util.Native.load() uses File.createTempFile to create an exclusive temporary .lck file but derives the native-library path by removing the suffix, then FileOutputStream opens that predictable path without exclusive creation, allowing another local user with access to the same shared temporary directory to create or replace the library file before System.load() uses it. Successful exploitation depends on shared-directory permissions, host protections, and winning the race, and can execute native code as the victim; hardened systems may instead cause library loading to fail and fall back to Java implementations. Configurations using a system library, a private java.io.tmpdir, or Java-only implementations are not affected. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.4. |
| Twisted is an event-based framework for internet applications, supporting Python 3.6+. In 25.5.0 and earlier, wildcardToRegexp() in twisted/mail/imap4.py translates the IMAP asterisk and percent wildcards but passes all other characters from an authenticated client's LIST or LSUB pattern directly to re.compile(), allowing nested or otherwise expensive regular expression constructs to cause catastrophic backtracking when matched against mailbox names. Because Twisted uses a cooperative single-threaded reactor, the blocking match suspends all server input and output for the duration of the match. No fixed release is available as of this review. |
| In sshd and ssh in OpenSSH before 10.6, an LZ77 dictionary coder can be used even though this is contraindicated by the arXiv 2609.07709 "Crossing the Streams" findings. |
| In ssh in OpenSSH before 10.6, a $ or \ character can occur in a command-line username, leading to injection. |
| Incorrect authorization in Selection in Google Chrome on on iOS prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Information leak in Passwords in Google Chrome prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Incorrect authorization in Browser in Google Chrome prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| A command injection vulnerability exists in the API of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated remote attacker to escalate privileges and gain administrative control of the affected system. |
| An authenticated path traversal vulnerability exists in ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to read and modify certain files on the underlying operating system. |
| A privilege escalation vulnerability in the ClearPass Policy Manager OnGuard Linux agent could allow malicious users on a Linux instance to elevate their user privileges. A successful exploit allows a malicious user to escalate to root privileges on the affected Linux client. |
| A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the Windows client software for ClearPass Policy Manager could allow malicious users on a local instance to elevate their user privileges. A successful exploit could allow these users to execute attacker-supplied code with elevated privileges on the local system. |
| An unauthenticated path traversal vulnerability exists in an API endpoint of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to influence authorization decisions and be assigned an unintended role. |
| A SQL injection vulnerability in the API of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow a remote authenticated attacker with administrative privileges to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass Policy Manager instance. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary database commands. |
| An arbitrary file write vulnerability in the ClearPass Policy Manager OnGuard agent could allow malicious users on a local instance to elevate their user privileges if certain preconditions outside of the attacker's control are met. Successful exploitation could allow a local attacker to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges on the affected system. |
| A command injection vulnerability in the OnGuard agent of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an authenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute commands with elevated privileges on the affected Windows endpoint. |
| A vulnerability in a client interface of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to conduct a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the affected client interface. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code in a victim's browser context within the affected client interface. |
| A sensitive information disclosure vulnerability exists in the client software of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker with local access to the affected system to obtain sensitive information. |
| A vulnerability in an API interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information from the affected system. |
| Gitea validated a push mirror's remote address against the `[migrations]` allow and block lists only when the mirror was created. Each synchronization passed the stored address directly to `git push`, so a name that later resolved to a blocked or internal address was still reached. A user with administrator access to a repository, which includes repositories they create themselves, could aim push mirror synchronization at internal Git services and force-push the repository's contents to them. |
| When a push was authenticated with a deploy key, Gitea recorded the repository owner as the pusher, so permission checks in the push hook pipeline evaluated the owner instead of the deploy key. A holder of a writable deploy key could create protected tags without being on the tag allow list and change repository visibility through push options, for example making a private repository public. Pull requests created through the AGit flow with a deploy key were also attributed to the owner. |
