| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Microsoft SharePoint Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Microsoft SharePoint Information Disclosure Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Office Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Android Spoofing Vulnerability |
| Microsoft System Center Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| An Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability [CWE-288] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.9, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.0.0 through 7.0.15, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.9, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.15, FortiNAC-F 7.6.3 through 7.6.5, FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.18, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.12, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.15, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.22, FortiWeb 8.0.0 through 8.0.3, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.11 may allow an attacker with a FortiCloud account and a registered device to log into other devices registered to other accounts, if FortiCloud SSO authentication is enabled on those devices. |
| DedeCMS V5.7.118 is vulnerable to Command Execution in file_manage_control.php. |
| Authenticated administrators connected to the local network can gain
elevated access to the router and make unauthorized changes to router
software and functionality. |
| Svelte is a performance oriented web framework. Prior to version 5.55.7, Svelte was vulnerable to DOM clobbering of its internal framework state on elements, potentially leading to XSS attacks. This issue has been patched in version 5.55.7. |
| Svelte is a performance oriented web framework. Prior to version 5.55.7, when using spread syntax to render attributes from untrusted data, event handler properties are included in the rendered HTML output. If an application spreads user-controlled or external data as element attributes, an attacker can inject malicious event handlers that execute in victims' browsers. Note that this vulnerability only triggers if the user's browser has JavaScript enabled but Svelte's hydration mechanism does not reach the vulnerable element before the event fires. This issue has been patched in version 5.55.7. |
| An OS command injection vulnerability in Ivanti EPMM before 12.9.0.1, 12.8.0.3 and 12.7.0.2 versions allows a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands as root |
| Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV
(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.
Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
to the victim's application using these ciphers.
AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD
modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated
but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte
tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only
if the tag is verified succesfully.
In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is
computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.
If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without
invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received
ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its
all-zeros value.
When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty
ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not
know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's
necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without
resetting the key.
AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since
OpenSSL 3.2.
No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support
either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must
implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the
ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| Remote Desktop Protocol Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Kernel Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Secure Kernel Mode Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Relative path traversal in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint allows an authorized attacker to perform spoofing locally. |
| Azure Stack Hyperconverged Infrastructure (HCI) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
