| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Use of an uninitialized value in Skia in Google Chrome prior to 60.0.3112.78 for Mac, Windows, Linux, and Android allowed a remote attacker to obtain potentially sensitive information from process memory via a crafted HTML page. |
| USB Pratirodh is prone to sensitive information disclosure. It stores sensitive information such as username and password in simple usb.xml. An attacker with physical access to the system can modify the file according his own requirements that may aid in further attack. |
| Cacti before 1.0.0 allows remote authenticated users to conduct PHP object injection attacks and execute arbitrary PHP code via a crafted serialized object, related to calling unserialize(stripslashes()). |
| mrlg-lib.php in mrlg4php before 1.0.8 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary shell code. |
| Akamai NetSession 1.9.3.1 is vulnerable to DLL Hijacking: it tries to load CSUNSAPI.dll without supplying the complete path. The issue is aggravated because the mentioned DLL is missing from the installation, thus making it possible to hijack the DLL and subsequently inject code within the Akamai NetSession process space. |
| In CMS Made Simple 2.1.6, there is Server-Side Template Injection via the cntnt01detailtemplate parameter. |
| IBM Forms Experience Builder could be susceptible to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) from the application design interface allowing for some information disclosure of internal resources. |
| The UpdraftPlus plugin through 1.13.12 for WordPress has SSRF in the updraft_ajax_handler function in /wp-content/plugins/updraftplus/admin.php via an httpget subaction. NOTE: the vendor reports that this does not cross a privilege boundary |
| The Recurly Client Python Library before 2.0.5, 2.1.16, 2.2.22, 2.3.1, 2.4.5, 2.5.1, 2.6.2 is vulnerable to a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in the "Resource.get" method that could result in compromise of API keys or other critical resources. |
| An issue was discovered in Adobe Connect 9.6.2 and earlier versions. A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists that could be abused to bypass network access controls. |
| Mahara 1.8 before 1.8.7 and 1.9 before 1.9.5 and 1.10 before 1.10.3 and 15.04 before 15.04.0 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery attacks as not all processes of curl redirects are checked against a white or black list. Employing SafeCurl will prevent issues. |
| The Ping() function in ui/api/target.go in Harbor through 1.3.0-rc4 has SSRF via the endpoint parameter to /api/targets/ping. |
| Artica Pandora FMS version 7.0 is vulnerable to remote PHP code execution through the manager files function. This is only exploitable by administrators who upload a PHP file. |
| Remote Code Execution was found in Horde_Image 2.x before 2.5.0 via a crafted GET request. Exploitation requires authentication. |
| In Fiyo CMS 2.x through 2.0.7, attackers may upload a webshell via the content parameter to "/dapur/apps/app_theme/libs/save_file.php" and then execute code. |
| In Ambari 1.2.0 through 2.2.2, it may be possible to execute arbitrary system commands on the Ambari Server host while generating SSL certificates for hosts in an Ambari cluster. |
| The _mediaLibraryPlayCb function in mainwindow.py in pitivi before 0.95 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in a file path. |
| The Googlemaps plugin before 3.1 for Joomla! allows remote attackers to conduct XML injection attacks via the url parameter to plugin_googlemap2_proxy.php. |
| Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in file_upload.php in Synology Photo Station before 6.7.4-3433 and 6.3-2968 allows remote authenticated users to download arbitrary local files via the url parameter. |
| Code injection vulnerability in Bitdefender Total Security 12.0 (and earlier), Internet Security 12.0 (and earlier), and Antivirus Plus 12.0 (and earlier) allows a local attacker to bypass a self-protection mechanism, inject arbitrary code, and take full control of any Bitdefender process via a "DoubleAgent" attack. One perspective on this issue is that (1) these products do not use the Protected Processes feature, and therefore an attacker can enter an arbitrary Application Verifier Provider DLL under Image File Execution Options in the registry; (2) the self-protection mechanism is intended to block all local processes (regardless of privileges) from modifying Image File Execution Options for these products; and (3) this mechanism can be bypassed by an attacker who temporarily renames Image File Execution Options during the attack. |
