| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Unvalidated input and lack of output encoding in the Themify Portfolio Post WordPress plugin, versions before 1.1.6, lead to Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities allowing low-privileged users (Contributor+) to inject arbitrary JavaScript code or HTML in posts where the Themify Custom Panel is embedded, which could lead to privilege escalation. |
| Unvalidated input and lack of output encoding in the Team Members WordPress plugin, versions before 5.0.4, lead to Cross-site scripting vulnerabilities allowing medium-privileged authenticated attacker (contributor+) to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the 'Description/biography' of a member. |
| Unvalidated input and lack of output encoding in the ThirstyAffiliates Affiliate Link Manager WordPress plugin, versions before 3.9.3, was vulnerable to authenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), which could lead to privilege escalation. |
| Unvalidated input and lack of output encoding in the Envira Gallery Lite WordPress plugin, versions before 1.8.3.3, did not properly sanitise the images metadata (namely title) before outputting them in the generated gallery, which could lead to privilege escalation. |
| Unvalidated input in the Contact Form Submissions WordPress plugin before 1.7.1, could lead to SQL injection in the wpcf7_contact_form GET parameter when submitting a filter request as a high privilege user (admin+) |
| Unvalidated input and lack of output encoding in the WP Shieldon WordPress plugin, version 1.6.3 and below, leads to Unauthenticated Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) when the CAPTCHA page is shown could lead to privileged escalation. |
| Arbitrary file upload in the PowerPress WordPress plugin, versions before 8.3.8, did not verify some of the uploaded feed images (such as the ones from Podcast Artwork section), allowing high privilege accounts (admin+) being able to upload arbitrary files, such as php, leading to RCE. |
| In Apache Teaclave Rust SGX SDK 1.1.3, a side-channel vulnerability in base64 PEM file decoding allows system-level (administrator) attackers to obtain information about secret RSA keys via a controlled-channel and side-channel attack on software running in isolated environments that can be single stepped, especially Intel SGX. |
| In wolfSSL through 4.6.0, a side-channel vulnerability in base64 PEM file decoding allows system-level (administrator) attackers to obtain information about secret RSA keys via a controlled-channel and side-channel attack on software running in isolated environments that can be single stepped, especially Intel SGX. |
| In Botan before 2.17.3, constant-time computations are not used for certain decoding and encoding operations (base32, base58, base64, and hex). |
| Microsoft Teams iOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability |
| .NET Core Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| .NET Framework Denial of Service Vulnerability |
| HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Azure Kubernetes Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Windows Event Tracing Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Windows DirectX Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| <p>Depending on configuration of various package managers it is possible for an attacker to insert a malicious package into a package manager's repository which can be retrieved and used during development, build, and release processes. This insertion could lead to remote code execution. We believe this vulnerability affects multiple package managers across multiple languages, including but not limited to: Python/pip, .NET/NuGet, Java/Maven, JavaScript/npm.</p>
<p><strong>Attack scenarios</strong></p>
<p>An attacker could take advantage of this ecosystem-wide issue to cause harm in a variety of ways. The original attack scenarios were discovered by Alex Birsan and are detailed in their whitepaper, <a href="https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60fec610">Dependency Confusion: How I Hacked Into Apple, Microsoft and Dozens of Other Companies</a>.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>With basic knowledge of the target ecosystems, an attacker could create an empty shell for a package and insert malicious code in the install scripts, give it a high version, and publish it to the public repository. Vulnerable victim machines will download the higher version of the package between the public and private repositories and attempt to install it. Due to code incompatibility it will probably error out upon import or upon compilation, making it easier to detect; however the attacker would have gained code execution by that point.</p>
</li>
<li><p>An advanced attacker with some inside knowledge of the target could take a copy of a working package, insert the malicious code (in the package itself or in the install), and then publish it to a public repository. The package will likely install and import correctly, granting the attacker an initial foothold and persistence.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>These two methods could affect target organizations at any of these various levels:</p>
<ul>
<li>Developer machines</li>
<li>An entire team if the configuration to import the malicious package is uploaded to a code repository</li>
<li>Continuous integration pipelines if they pull the malicious packages during the build, test, and/or deploy stages</li>
<li>Customers, download servers, production services if the malicious code has not been detected</li>
</ul>
<p>This remote code execution vulnerability can only be addressed by reconfiguring installation tools and workflows, and not by correcting anything in the package repositories themselves. See the <strong>FAQ</strong> section of this CVE for configuration guidance.</p>
|
