| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary commands to be executed on the affected gateway. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code execution as the gateway service account. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems. |
| Bludit CMS through 3.22.0 contains a mass assignment vulnerability that allows authenticated users with the Author role to modify privileged page fields reserved for administrators by injecting reserved parameters into a content save request. Attackers can submit reserved fields such as type and username through the Pages::edit() function in bl-kernel/pages.class.php, which iterates all fields declared in dbFields without per-field authorization, enabling an Author to convert pages to static site-wide navigation entries or transfer page ownership to arbitrary accounts. |
| openssl_encrypt before 1.4.9 executes untrusted third-party plugins with insufficient controls: the plugin signature policy defaulted to WARN, so an unsigned/unverifiable non-built-in plugin was compiled and executed in the host process at import time, before the runtime sandbox is installed. The only default gate was an incomplete, bypassable AST denylist. If a user is induced to load an attacker's plugin, this results in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running openssl_encrypt. Fixed in 1.4.9 by defaulting the signature policy to ENFORCE for non-built-in plugins. |
| openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.9 contain a weak key derivation vulnerability in the D-Bus CryptoService.EncryptFile handler that uses unstretched SHA-256 instead of Argon2id. Attackers can perform offline password guessing against encrypted files roughly six to seven orders of magnitude faster than documented protection by exploiting the missing key stretching and hash rounds. |
| openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.9 derive the remote-pepper wrap key using unsalted HKDF-SHA256 or bare SHA-256 of the password, allowing identical keys across all users and files. Attackers with access to wrapped pepper blobs can precompute a single dictionary table and perform fleet-wide offline password guessing at hardware speed to recover user passwords. |
| Xinference loads models with Hugging Face remote code execution unconditionally enabled, and before version 2.12.0 exposes no setting to disable it. Six loader call sites pass trust_remote_code=True as a literal or as an unconditional default: RerankModel._get_tokenizer in xinference/model/rerank/core.py, SentenceTransformerRerankModel.load in xinference/model/rerank/sentence_transformers/core.py, SentenceTransformerEmbeddingModel.load in xinference/model/embedding/sentence_transformers/core.py, FlagEmbeddingModel.load in xinference/model/embedding/flag/core.py, and two sites in xinference/model/llm/transformers/core.py where PytorchModel._sanitize_model_config and PytorchModel._get_components default the value to True. Because a caller with model launch access can register a model whose type is unknown and supply an arbitrary model path, the server reaches _auto_detect_type and then AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained, which imports and executes Python declared by the model directory's own tokenizer_config.json auto_map, running attacker-supplied code with the privileges of the worker process. Version 2.12.0 gates every site behind allow_trust_remote_code and the XINFERENCE_TRUST_REMOTE_CODE setting, permitting remote code only for bundled built-in models. |
| baserCMS before 5.3.0 contains a SQL injection vulnerability in BcDatabaseService.php that allows authenticated administrators to inject attacker-controlled table names and configuration values directly into SQL statements across sequence update, CSV export, and table management operations. Attackers can chain a backup restore code injection flaw, where PHP code outside class definitions in schema files executes unconditionally upon loading, to plant malicious table names and trigger error-based SQL injection that retrieves database version, schema contents, and arbitrary data from the PostgreSQL backend. |
| openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.0 contain a sandbox escape vulnerability in IsolatedPluginExecutor that exposes Python type objects in restricted exec() builtins. Attackers can traverse the Python class hierarchy via __class__.__mro__.__subclasses__() to access system functions and execute arbitrary OS commands. |
| openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.0 configure CORS with allow_origins set to wildcard and allow_credentials enabled to true. Attackers can create malicious websites that make authenticated cross-origin requests to the API on behalf of any user who visits them. |
| openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.6 contain a key derivation flaw in sequential XOR composition mode where the last stage cancels out during key generation. When configured with a single KDF and no prior hashing stage, attackers can bypass memory-hard key derivation and perform offline password cracking at SHA-256 speed instead of the configured KDF cost. |
| ImpressCMS contains an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability in the custom tag module that allows authenticated administrators to execute arbitrary PHP code by storing a malicious payload in a custom tag with PHP type enabled. The application decodes HTML-encoded content via undoHtmlSpecialChars() before passing it to eval() in the renderWithPhp() method, bypassing HTML Purifier sanitization, and the payload is triggered on every frontend page load through the preload event system. |
| SitemapLoader.parse_sitemap in langchain_community/document_loaders/sitemap.py applies the documented restrict_to_same_domain control only to leaf url entries. The loop over url elements filters cross-domain locations, but the loop over nested sitemap elements passes the child loc straight to self.scrape_all([loc.text], "xml"), which reaches WebBaseLoader.scrape_all and an aiohttp GET, with no domain comparison and no check for private, loopback or link-local destinations. An attacker who controls or influences an ingested sitemap can therefore point a nested sitemap entry at an internal address and make the server fetch it even when the deploying application set restrict_to_same_domain to True specifically to confine outbound requests. The fetched content is parsed and surfaces in the returned Documents, so internal responses are disclosed to the caller rather than merely requested. |
