Intelligence
Explorer.

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (“Cross-site Scripting”) in ASUS router modules allows a remote attacker to read DOM information, modify router settings, and cause a denial-of-service condition when an authenticated user visits a crafted URL.Refer to the ' Security Update for ASUS Router Firmware  ' section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information.

A flaw was found in GIMP’s X cursor (XMC) thumbnail loader. When GIMP generates a thumbnail for a crafted XMC file, it allocates a pixel buffer using a width * height size computed in 32-bit signed arithmetic. If that product overflows, the allocation is smaller than the true image extent. A subsequent GEGL buffer read uses the unwrapped dimensions and performs an out-of-bounds read on the heap, after integer overflow in the size calculation. This can crash GIMP or corrupt process memory.

A predictable seed in the pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) in the IFTTT pairing token generation of the ASUS RT-BE57 router allows an unauthenticated nearby user to derive the pairing token and read or modify router settings via observed values from an administrator-initiated IFTTT pairing session.Refer to the ' Security Update for ASUS Router Firmware  ' section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information.

A stack-based buffer overflow in the ASUS router modules allows an authenticated nearby user to execute arbitrary code via a crafted configuration file upload that exceeds the expected buffer size.Refer to the ' Security Update for ASUS Router Firmware  ' section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information.

Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File in certain ASUS router models allows a remote authenticated attacker to obtain DDNS credentials from the system log, potentially enabling modification of DNS settings.Refer to the ' Security Update for ASUS Router Firmware  ' section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information.

A flaw was found in Candlepin. The central authorization filter incorrectly grants access when any one of multiple @Verify-annotated parameters is accessible, instead of requiring access to every verified entity. A low-privilege authenticated attacker who can access the first referenced object can bypass authorization checks on subsequent objects. When target resource identifiers are known, this can enable unauthorized disclosure of consumer information and unauthorized modification of entitlements and related subscription resources, including across organizations.

An HTTP header injection vulnerability in start-page-loader.cgi of ADM allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to read arbitrary files on the host system. By sending a crafted HTTP request with injected headers via the state parameter, the attacker can leverage the underlying web server's X-Sendfile mechanism to retrieve sensitive files without authentication. Affected products and versions include: from ADM 4.1.0 through ADM 4.3.3.RWC1 as well as from ADM 5.0.0 through ADM 5.1.4.RL21.

In affected versions of Octopus Server, an authenticated user with permission to modify roles could bypass the protections preventing access abuse resulting in privilege escalation. It was possible for the built-in role to be weakened and the attacker's account added to a privileged team. This was achievable due to improper validation of unsafe equivalence in inputs.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information or inject malicious data due to improper access control in the vertex result caching subsystem.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection') related to improper input validation.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in code, resulting in a sandbox escape.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection'), aka improper control of code generation.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to a path traversal vulnerability.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an incomplete blocklist in the code security scanner.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption during ZIP file extraction.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper authorization.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an expected dependency confusion.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory.

IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow an attacker with access to the server secret and Redis write access to submit a malicious serialized cache value. When the value was retrieved, deserialization could have executed attacker-controlled code with the privileges of the service process.