| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Bitwarden server through 1.32.0 has a potentially unwanted KDF. |
| class.userpeer.php in MFScripts YetiShare 3.5.2 through 4.5.3 uses an insecure method of creating password reset hashes (based only on microtime), which allows an attacker to guess the hash and set the password within a few hours by bruteforcing. |
| paraparser in ReportLab before 3.5.31 allows remote code execution because start_unichar in paraparser.py evaluates untrusted user input in a unichar element in a crafted XML document with '<unichar code="' followed by arbitrary Python code, a similar issue to CVE-2019-17626. |
| GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) 6.7 and later through 12.5 allows SSRF. |
| OX App Suite through 7.10.2 allows SSRF. |
| A Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in FaviconServlet.java in Ignite Realtime Openfire through 4.4.2 allows attackers to send arbitrary HTTP GET requests. |
| Symantec Messaging Gateway, prior to 10.7.3, may be susceptible to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) exploit, which is a type of issue that can let an attacker send crafted requests from the backend server of a vulnerable web application or access services available through the loopback interface. |
| An SSRF issue was discovered in the legacy Web launcher in Thycotic Secret Server before 10.7. |
| WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because Windows paths are mishandled during certain validation of relative URLs. |
| WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because URL validation does not consider the interpretation of a name as a series of hex characters. |
| ReportLab through 3.5.26 allows remote code execution because of toColor(eval(arg)) in colors.py, as demonstrated by a crafted XML document with '<span color="' followed by arbitrary Python code. |
| Apache Batik is vulnerable to server-side request forgery, caused by improper input validation by the "xlink:href" attributes. By using a specially-crafted argument, an attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause the underlying server to make arbitrary GET requests. |
| The unoconv package before 0.9 mishandles untrusted pathnames, leading to SSRF and local file inclusion. |
| ClipSoft REXPERT 1.0.0.527 and earlier version allows arbitrary file creation and execution via report print function of rexpert viewer with modified XML document. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious web page. |
| An issue was discovered on V-Zug Combi-Steam MSLQ devices before Ethernet R07 and before WLAN R05. Password authentication uses MD5 to hash passwords. Cracking is possible with minimal effort. |
| An SSRF issue was discovered in Enghouse Web Chat 6.1.300.31. In any POST request, one can replace the port number at WebServiceLocation=http://localhost:8085/UCWebServices/ with a range of ports to determine what is visible on the internal network (as opposed to what general web traffic would see on the product's host). The response from open ports is different than from closed ports. The product does not allow one to change the protocol: anything except http(s) will throw an error; however, it is the type of error that allows one to determine if a port is open or not. |
| NSA Ghidra through 9.0.4, when experimental mode is enabled, allows arbitrary code execution if the Read XML Files feature of Bit Patterns Explorer is used with a modified XML document. This occurs in Features/BytePatterns/src/main/java/ghidra/bitpatterns/info/FileBitPatternInfoReader.java. An attack could start with an XML document that was originally created by DumpFunctionPatternInfoScript but then directly modified by an attacker (for example, to make a java.lang.Runtime.exec call). |
| A blind SSRF vulnerability exists in the Visualizer plugin before 3.3.1 for WordPress via wp-json/visualizer/v1/upload-data. |
| Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5, 6.4, 6.3, 6.2, 6.1, and 6.0 have an expression language injection vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to sensitive information disclosure. |
| An issue was discovered in GitLab Community and Enterprise Edition 12.0 through 12.2.1. Non-members were able to comment on merge requests despite the repository being set to allow only project members to do so. |
