Overview 539 matches · 66 in Waratek scope · 0 protected · 15 exploited · 7 CISA KEV · 29 public PoC · 19 EPSS ≥ 0.5
539matches
66in Waratek scope12.2%
0protected0.0%
15exploited2.8%
7CISA KEV1.3%
29public PoC5.4%
19EPSS ≥ 0.53.5%
Protected by Waratek
0
0.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
0
0.0%
No exploit published
66
12.2%
Outside Waratek scope
69
12.8%
Not applicable
404
75.0%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
0
0.0%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
539
100.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
split by
peak 81 / year
20042
Not applicable2
High1
Low1
not blocked2
No public exploit2
20051
Not applicable1
Medium1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
20060
20076
Not applicable6
High5
Medium1
not blocked6
Working exploit published1
No public exploit5
200812
Not applicable12
High8
Medium2
Low2
not blocked12
Working exploit published4
No public exploit8
200911
Not applicable11
High9
Medium2
not blocked11
Working exploit published2
No public exploit9
20104
Not applicable4
High4
not blocked4
No public exploit4
20116
Not applicable6
High1
Medium4
Low1
not blocked6
Working exploit published1
No public exploit5
20124
Not applicable4
High1
Medium3
not blocked4
Working exploit published1
No public exploit3
20139
Not applicable9
High2
Medium6
Low1
not blocked9
No public exploit9
201410
Not applicable10
Critical2
High3
Medium5
not blocked10
Exploited2
Working exploit published1
No public exploit7
20158
Not applicable8
High2
Medium4
Low2
not blocked8
No public exploit8
201613
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable11
High6
Medium7
not blocked13
Exploited1
No public exploit12
201723
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable21
Critical3
High10
Medium10
not blocked23
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit22
201832
No exploit published5
Outside Waratek scope2
Not applicable25
Critical3
High13
Medium16
not blocked32
Working exploit published1
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit30
201974
No exploit published25
Outside Waratek scope14
Not applicable35
Critical17
High31
Medium26
not blocked74
Exploited3
No public exploit71
202047
No exploit published7
Outside Waratek scope6
Not applicable34
Critical3
High15
Medium27
Low2
not blocked47
Exploited1
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit45
202171
No exploit published5
Outside Waratek scope19
Not applicable47
Critical7
High29
Medium34
Low1
not blocked71
Exploited1
Working exploit published1
Proof of concept only2
Forecast only1
No public exploit66
202281
No exploit published16
Outside Waratek scope8
Not applicable57
Critical7
High26
Medium48
not blocked81
Exploited1
Proof of concept only7
No public exploit73
202331
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope4
Not applicable26
Critical3
High10
Medium18
not blocked31
Exploited2
Proof of concept only5
No public exploit24
202443
No exploit published2
Outside Waratek scope12
Not applicable29
Critical4
High15
Medium21
Low3
not blocked43
Exploited2
Proof of concept only3
Forecast only1
No public exploit37
202533
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope2
Not applicable30
Critical2
High10
Medium18
Low3
not blocked33
Exploited1
Proof of concept only6
No public exploit26
202618
No exploit published2
Not applicable16
Critical1
High7
Medium10
not blocked18
Exploited1
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit16
200420062008201020122014201620182020202220242026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-10569 | Medium | 2026-07-30 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM UrbanCode Deploy 7.2 through 7.2.3.23, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.18 and IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.13, 8.1 through 8.1.2.6, and 8.2 through 8.2.1.0 is susceptible to an Exposure of Sensitive Information Vulnerability in plugin output logs. This exposure could allow an attacker with access to the logs to potentially obtain senstive values related to that step. |
| CVE-2026-63764 | High | 2026-07-21 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | LMDeploy through 0.14.0, fixed in commit 03c3130, contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the _load_http_url function within the connection.py media handler, where the private-IP guard validates only the original URL without re-validating hosts after HTTP redirects. An unauthenticated attacker can submit a crafted image_url to the chat completions endpoint pointing to an attacker-controlled host that returns a redirect to a private IP or cloud-metadata endpoint, causing the server to follow the redirect and expose internal service content through the model pipeline. |
| CVE-2026-56460 | Medium | 2026-07-09 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch could disclose sensitive configurations and secrets to authenticated users in API responses that could be used in further attacks against the system. |
| CVE-2026-56459 | Medium | 2026-07-09 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch is susceptible to sensitive information disclosure. The application stores potentially sensitive information in log files that could be read by a local user. |
| CVE-2026-56458 | High | 2026-07-09 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy uses Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) which could allow an attacker to carry out privileged actions and retrieve sensitive information as the domain name is not being limited to only trusted domains. |
| CVE-2026-12086 | Medium | 2026-06-30 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM UrbanCode Deploy 7.2 through 7.2.3.23, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.18 and IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.13, 8.1 through 8.1.2.6, and 8.2 through 8.2.1.0 IBM DevOps Deploy stores potentially sensitive information in log files that could be read by a local user. |
| CVE-2026-12085 | Medium | 2026-06-30 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM UrbanCode Deploy 7.3 through 7.3.2.18 and IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.13, 8.1 through 8.1.2.6, and 8.2 through 8.2.1.0 IBM DevOps Deploy could disclose sensitive configurations and secrets to authenticated users in API responses that could be used in further attacks against the system. |
| CVE-2026-12084 | High | 2026-06-30 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.1 through 8.1.2.6, and 8.2 through 8.2.1.0 uses Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) which could allow an attacker to carry out privileged actions and retrieve sensitive information as the domain name is not being limited to only trusted domains. |
| CVE-2026-56457 | Medium | 2026-06-29 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch is susceptible to an exposure of sensitive information vulnerability in output logs. This exposure could allow an attacker with access to the logs to potentially obtain sensitive values related to that step. |
| CVE-2026-22726 | Medium | 2026-05-01 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Route Services can be leveraged to send app traffic to network destinations outside of an app's configured egress rules. As a result, a malicious developer with access to Cloudfoundry could configure a route-service that would allow it to send requests to HTTP services on internal networks reachable by the Gorouter, which may not have previously had direct access from outside networks, or from the application. Routing release: affected from v0.118.0 through v0.371.0 (inclusive); upgrade to v0.372.0 or greater. CF Deployment: affected from v0.0.2 through v54.14.0 (inclusive); upgrade to v55.0.0 or greater (includes routing_release v0.372.0). |
| CVE-2026-33626 | High | 2026-04-20 | Not applicable | Exploited | LMDeploy is a toolkit for compressing, deploying, and serving large language models. Versions prior to 0.12.3 have a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in LMDeploy's vision-language module. The `load_image()` function in `lmdeploy/vl/utils.py` fetches arbitrary URLs without validating internal/private IP addresses, allowing attackers to access cloud metadata services, internal networks, and sensitive resources. Version 0.12.3 patches the issue. |
| CVE-2026-22723 | Medium | 2026-03-05 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Inappropriate user token revocation due to a logic error in the token revocation endpoint implementation in Cloudfoundry UAA v77.30.0 to v78.7.0 and in Cloudfoundry Deployment v48.7.0 to v54.10.0. |
| CVE-2026-27208 | Critical | 2026-02-24 | Not applicable | No public exploit | bleon-ethical/api-gateway-deploy provides API gateway deployment. Version 1.0.0 is vulnerable to an attack chain involving OS Command Injection and Privilege Escalation. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges within the container, potentially leading to a container escape and unauthorized infrastructure modifications. This is fixed in version 1.0.1 by implementing strict input sanitization and secure delimiters in entrypoint.sh, enforcing a non-root user (appuser) in the Dockerfile, and establishing mandatory security quality gates. |
| CVE-2025-15330 | High | 2026-02-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Tanium addressed an improper input validation vulnerability in Deploy. |
| CVE-2025-15327 | Medium | 2026-02-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Tanium addressed an improper access controls vulnerability in Deploy. |
| CVE-2026-21926 | High | 2026-01-20 | No exploit published | No public exploit | Vulnerability in the Siebel CRM Deployment product of Oracle Siebel CRM (component: Server Infrastructure). Supported versions that are affected are 17.0-25.2. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via TLS to compromise Siebel CRM Deployment. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of Siebel CRM Deployment. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H). |
| CVE-2026-20943 | High | 2026-01-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Untrusted search path in Microsoft Office allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally. |
| CVE-2025-62327 | Medium | 2026-01-07 | Not applicable | No public exploit | In HCL DevOps Deploy 8.1.2.0 through 8.1.2.3, a user with LLM configuration privileges may be able to recover a credential previously saved for performing authenticated LLM Queries. |
| CVE-2025-67729 | High | 2025-12-26 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | LMDeploy is a toolkit for compressing, deploying, and serving LLMs. Prior to version 0.11.1, an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists in lmdeploy where torch.load() is called without the weights_only=True parameter when loading model checkpoint files. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the victim's machine when they load a malicious .bin or .pt model file. This issue has been patched in version 0.11.1. |
| CVE-2025-59849 | Medium | 2025-12-17 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Improper management of Content Security Policy in HCL BigFix Remote Control Lite Web Portal (versions 10.1.0.0326 and lower) may allow the execution of malicious code in web pages. |
| CVE-2025-55254 | Medium | 2025-12-17 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Improper management of Path-relative stylesheet import in HCL BigFix Remote Control Lite Web Portal (versions 10.1.0.0326 and lower) may allow to execute malicious code in certain web pages. |
| CVE-2025-62330 | Medium | 2025-12-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy is susceptible to a cleartext transmission of sensitive information because the HTTP port remains accessible and does not redirect to HTTPS as intended. As a result, an attacker with network access could intercept or modify user credentials and session-related data via passive monitoring or man-in-the-middle attacks. |
| CVE-2025-62329 | Medium | 2025-12-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch is susceptible to a race condition in http-session client-IP binding enforcement which may allow a session to be briefly reused from a new IP address before it is invalidated. This could lead to unauthorized access under certain network conditions. |
| CVE-2025-36360 | Medium | 2025-12-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM UrbanCode Deploy 7.1 through 7.1.2.27, 7.2 through 7.2.3.20, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.15 and IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.10, and 8.1 through 8.1.2.3 is susceptible to a race condition in http-session client-IP binding enforcement which may allow a session to be briefly reused from a new IP address before it is invalidated, potentially enabling unauthorized access under certain network conditions. |
| CVE-2025-14148 | Medium | 2025-12-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.1 through 8.1.2.3 could allow an authenticated user with LLM integration configuration privileges to recover a previously saved LLM API Token. |
| CVE-2025-13489 | Medium | 2025-12-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UCD - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.1 through 8.1.2.3 IBM DevOps Deploy transmits data in clear text that could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. |
| CVE-2025-36162 | Medium | 2025-09-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DevOps Deploy / IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 8.1 before 8.1.2.2 could allow an authenticated user to obtain sensitive information about configuration on the system. |
| CVE-2025-52095 | Critical | 2025-08-22 | Not applicable | No public exploit | An issue in PDQ Smart Deploy V.3.0.2040 allows an attacker to escalate privileges via the Credential encryption routines in SDCommon.dll |
| CVE-2025-52094 | High | 2025-08-22 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Insecure Permissions vulnerability in PDQ Smart Deploy V.3.0.2040 allows a local attacker to execute arbtirary code via the \HKLM\SYSTEM\Setup\SmartDeploy component |
| CVE-2025-53772 | High | 2025-08-12 | Not applicable | Exploited | Deserialization of untrusted data in Web Deploy allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network. |
| CVE-2025-45472 | High | 2025-05-22 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Insecure permissions in autodeploy-layer v1.2.0 allows attackers to escalate privileges and compromise the customer cloud account. |
| CVE-2025-22246 | High | 2025-05-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Cloud Foundry UAA release versions from v77.21.0 to v7.31.0 are vulnerable to a private key exposure in logs. |
| CVE-2025-3115 | Critical | 2025-04-09 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Injection Vulnerabilities: Attackers can inject malicious code, potentially gaining control over the system executing these functions. Additionally, insufficient validation of filenames during file uploads can enable attackers to upload and execute malicious files, leading to arbitrary code execution |
| CVE-2025-3163 | Medium | 2025-04-03 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | A vulnerability was found in InternLM LMDeploy up to 0.7.1. It has been declared as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function Open of the file lmdeploy/docs/en/conf.py. The manipulation leads to code injection. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| CVE-2025-3162 | Medium | 2025-04-03 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | A vulnerability was found in InternLM LMDeploy up to 0.7.1. It has been classified as critical. Affected is the function load_weight_ckpt of the file lmdeploy/lmdeploy/vl/model/utils.py of the component PT File Handler. The manipulation leads to deserialization. Attacking locally is a requirement. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. |
| CVE-2025-0272 | High | 2025-04-03 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch is vulnerable to HTML injection. This vulnerability may allow a user to embed arbitrary HTML tags in the Web UI potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure. |
| CVE-2025-0257 | High | 2025-04-02 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch could allow unauthorized access to other services or potential exposure of sensitive data due to missing authentication in its Agent Relay service. |
| CVE-2025-1998 | Medium | 2025-03-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) through 7.1.2.21, 7.2 through 7.2.3.14, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.0 / IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.4 and 8.1 through 8.1 stores potentially sensitive authentication token information in log files that could be read by a local user. |
| CVE-2025-1997 | Medium | 2025-03-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.25, 7.1 through 7.1.2.21, 7.2 through 7.2.3.14, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.0 / IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.4 and 8.1 through 8.1 is vulnerable to HTML injection. This vulnerability may allow a user to embed arbitrary HTML tags in the Web UI potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure. |
| CVE-2025-0273 | Medium | 2025-03-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch stores potentially sensitive authentication token information in log files that could be read by a local user. |
| CVE-2024-56469 | Medium | 2025-03-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.1 through 7.1.2.22, 7.2 through 7.2.3.15, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.10 / IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.5 and 8.1 through 8.1.0.1 could allow unauthorized access to other services or potential exposure of sensitive data due to missing authentication in its Agent Relay service. |
| CVE-2025-0256 | Medium | 2025-03-24 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch could allow an authenticated user to obtain sensitive information about other users on the system due to missing authorization for a function. |
| CVE-2025-0255 | High | 2025-03-24 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch could allow a remote privileged authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the system by sending specially crafted input containing special elements. |
| CVE-2024-55904 | High | 2025-02-14 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.4, 8.1 through 8.1.0.0 / IBM UrbanCode Deploy 7.0 through 7.0.5.25, 7.1 through 7.1.2.21, 7.2 through 7.2.3.14, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.9 could allow a remote privileged authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the system by sending specially crafted input containing special elements. |
| CVE-2025-1247 | High | 2025-02-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A flaw was found in Quarkus REST that allows request parameters to leak between concurrent requests if endpoints use field injection without a CDI scope. This vulnerability allows attackers to manipulate request data, impersonate users, or access sensitive information. |
| CVE-2025-1181 | Low | 2025-02-11 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | A vulnerability classified as critical was found in GNU Binutils 2.43. This vulnerability affects the function _bfd_elf_gc_mark_rsec of the file bfd/elflink.c of the component ld. The manipulation leads to memory corruption. The attack can be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 931494c9a89558acb36a03a340c01726545eef24. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. |
| CVE-2025-1178 | Medium | 2025-02-11 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | A vulnerability was found in GNU Binutils 2.43. It has been declared as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is the function bfd_putl64 of the file libbfd.c of the component ld. The manipulation leads to memory corruption. The attack can be launched remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of the patch is 75086e9de1707281172cc77f178e7949a4414ed0. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. |
| CVE-2024-54176 | Medium | 2025-02-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.4, 8.1 through 8.1.0.0 and IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.25, 7.1 through 7.1.2.21, 7.2 through 7.2.3.14 and 7.3 through 7.3.2 could allow an authenticated user to obtain sensitive information about other users on the system due to missing authorization for a function. |
| CVE-2025-0167 | Low | 2025-02-05 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | When asked to use a `.netrc` file for credentials **and** to follow HTTP redirects, curl could leak the password used for the first host to the followed-to host under certain circumstances. This flaw only manifests itself if the netrc file has a `default` entry that omits both login and password. A rare circumstance. |
| CVE-2024-45091 | Medium | 2025-01-21 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.24, 7.1 through 7.1.2.10, and 7.2 through 7.2.3.13 stores potentially sensitive information in log files that could be read by a local user with access to HTTP request logs. |
| CVE-2024-51472 | Low | 2025-01-06 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.2 through 7.2.3.13, 7.3 through 7.3.2.8, and IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.1.3 are vulnerable to HTML injection. This vulnerability may allow a user to embed arbitrary HTML tags in the Web UI potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure. |
| CVE-2024-11053 | Low | 2024-12-11 | Not applicable | Proof of concept only | When asked to both use a `.netrc` file for credentials and to follow HTTP redirects, curl could leak the password used for the first host to the followed-to host under certain circumstances. This flaw only manifests itself if the netrc file has an entry that matches the redirect target hostname but the entry either omits just the password or omits both login and password. |
| CVE-2024-42195 | Medium | 2024-12-05 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch is vulnerable to HTML injection. This vulnerability may allow a user to embed arbitrary HTML tags in the Web UI potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure. |
| CVE-2023-20060 | Medium | 2024-11-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Prime Collaboration Deployment could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting attack against a user of the interface. This vulnerability exists because the web-based management interface does not properly validate user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a user of the interface to click a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary script code in the context of the affected interface or access sensitive, browser-based information. Cisco plans to release software updates that address this vulnerability. There are no workarounds that address this vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-4741 | Critical | 2024-11-13 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_free_buffers may cause memory to be accessed that was previously freed in some situations Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code. However, only applications that directly call the SSL_free_buffers function are affected by this issue. Applications that do not call this function are not vulnerable. Our investigations indicate that this function is rarely used by applications. The SSL_free_buffers function is used to free the internal OpenSSL buffer used when processing an incoming record from the network. The call is only expected to succeed if the buffer is not currently in use. However, two scenarios have been identified where the buffer is freed even when still in use. The first scenario occurs where a record header has been received from the network and processed by OpenSSL, but the full record body has not yet arrived. In this case calling SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though a record has only been partially processed and the buffer is still in use. The second scenario occurs where a full record containing application data has been received and processed by OpenSSL but the application has only read part of this data. Again a call to SSL_free_buffers will succeed even though the buffer is still in use. While these scenarios could occur accidentally during normal operation a malicious attacker could attempt to engineer a stituation where this occurs. We are not aware of this issue being actively exploited. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. |
| CVE-2024-9143 | High | 2024-10-16 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Issue summary: Use of the low-level GF(2^m) elliptic curve APIs with untrusted explicit values for the field polynomial can lead to out-of-bounds memory reads or writes. Impact summary: Out of bound memory writes can lead to an application crash or even a possibility of a remote code execution, however, in all the protocols involving Elliptic Curve Cryptography that we're aware of, either only "named curves" are supported, or, if explicit curve parameters are supported, they specify an X9.62 encoding of binary (GF(2^m)) curves that can't represent problematic input values. Thus the likelihood of existence of a vulnerable application is low. In particular, the X9.62 encoding is used for ECC keys in X.509 certificates, so problematic inputs cannot occur in the context of processing X.509 certificates. Any problematic use-cases would have to be using an "exotic" curve encoding. The affected APIs include: EC_GROUP_new_curve_GF2m(), EC_GROUP_new_from_params(), and various supporting BN_GF2m_*() functions. Applications working with "exotic" explicit binary (GF(2^m)) curve parameters, that make it possible to represent invalid field polynomials with a zero constant term, via the above or similar APIs, may terminate abruptly as a result of reading or writing outside of array bounds. Remote code execution cannot easily be ruled out. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. |
| CVE-2024-8096 | Medium | 2024-09-11 | Not applicable | No public exploit | When curl is told to use the Certificate Status Request TLS extension, often referred to as OCSP stapling, to verify that the server certificate is valid, it might fail to detect some OCSP problems and instead wrongly consider the response as fine. If the returned status reports another error than 'revoked' (like for example 'unauthorized') it is not treated as a bad certficate. |
| CVE-2024-6119 | High | 2024-09-03 | Outside Waratek scope | Forecast only | Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process. Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of service. Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when comparing the expected name with an `otherName` subject alternative name of an X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the application program. Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address. TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity of the issue is Moderate. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. |
| CVE-2024-34019 | High | 2024-08-29 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Local privilege escalation due to DLL hijacking vulnerability. The following products are affected: Acronis Snap Deploy (Windows) before build 4569. |
| CVE-2024-34018 | Medium | 2024-08-29 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Sensitive information disclosure due to insecure folder permissions. The following products are affected: Acronis Snap Deploy (Windows) before build 4569. |
| CVE-2024-34017 | High | 2024-08-29 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Local privilege escalation due to DLL hijacking vulnerability. The following products are affected: Acronis Snap Deploy (Windows) before build 4569. |
| CVE-2024-39689 | High | 2024-07-05 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Certifi is a curated collection of Root Certificates for validating the trustworthiness of SSL certificates while verifying the identity of TLS hosts. Certifi starting in 2021.5.30 and prior to 2024.7.4 recognized root certificates from `GLOBALTRUST`. Certifi 2024.7.04 removes root certificates from `GLOBALTRUST` from the root store. These are in the process of being removed from Mozilla's trust store. `GLOBALTRUST`'s root certificates are being removed pursuant to an investigation which identified "long-running and unresolved compliance issues." |
| CVE-2024-6387 | High | 2024-07-01 | Not applicable | Exploited | A security regression (CVE-2006-5051) was discovered in OpenSSH's server (sshd). There is a race condition which can lead sshd to handle some signals in an unsafe manner. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may be able to trigger it by failing to authenticate within a set time period. |
| CVE-2024-5535 | Critical | 2024-06-27 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto with an empty supported client protocols buffer may cause a crash or memory contents to be sent to the peer. Impact summary: A buffer overread can have a range of potential consequences such as unexpected application beahviour or a crash. In particular this issue could result in up to 255 bytes of arbitrary private data from memory being sent to the peer leading to a loss of confidentiality. However, only applications that directly call the SSL_select_next_proto function with a 0 length list of supported client protocols are affected by this issue. This would normally never be a valid scenario and is typically not under attacker control but may occur by accident in the case of a configuration or programming error in the calling application. The OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto is typically used by TLS applications that support ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation) or NPN (Next Protocol Negotiation). NPN is older, was never standardised and is deprecated in favour of ALPN. We believe that ALPN is significantly more widely deployed than NPN. The SSL_select_next_proto function accepts a list of protocols from the server and a list of protocols from the client and returns the first protocol that appears in the server list that also appears in the client list. In the case of no overlap between the two lists it returns the first item in the client list. In either case it will signal whether an overlap between the two lists was found. In the case where SSL_select_next_proto is called with a zero length client list it fails to notice this condition and returns the memory immediately following the client list pointer (and reports that there was no overlap in the lists). This function is typically called from a server side application callback for ALPN or a client side application callback for NPN. In the case of ALPN the list of protocols supplied by the client is guaranteed by libssl to never be zero in length. The list of server protocols comes from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length. In this case if the SSL_select_next_proto function has been called as expected (with the list supplied by the client passed in the client/client_len parameters), then the application will not be vulnerable to this issue. If the application has accidentally been configured with a zero length server list, and has accidentally passed that zero length server list in the client/client_len parameters, and has additionally failed to correctly handle a "no overlap" response (which would normally result in a handshake failure in ALPN) then it will be vulnerable to this problem. In the case of NPN, the protocol permits the client to opportunistically select a protocol when there is no overlap. OpenSSL returns the first client protocol in the no overlap case in support of this. The list of client protocols comes from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length. However if the SSL_select_next_proto function is accidentally called with a client_len of 0 then an invalid memory pointer will be returned instead. If the application uses this output as the opportunistic protocol then the loss of confidentiality will occur. This issue has been assessed as Low severity because applications are most likely to be vulnerable if they are using NPN instead of ALPN - but NPN is not widely used. It also requires an application configuration or programming error. Finally, this issue would not typically be under attacker control making active exploitation unlikely. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. Due to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing new releases of OpenSSL at this time. The fix will be included in the next releases when they become available. |
| CVE-2024-37293 | High | 2024-06-11 | Not applicable | No public exploit | The AWS Deployment Framework (ADF) is a framework to manage and deploy resources across multiple AWS accounts and regions within an AWS Organization. ADF allows for staged, parallel, multi-account, cross-region deployments of applications or resources via the structure defined in AWS Organizations while taking advantage of services such as AWS CodePipeline, AWS CodeBuild, and AWS CodeCommit to alleviate the heavy lifting and management compared to a traditional CI/CD setup. ADF contains a bootstrap process that is responsible to deploy ADF's bootstrap stacks to facilitate multi-account cross-region deployments. The ADF bootstrap process relies on elevated privileges to perform this task. Two versions of the bootstrap process exist; a code-change driven pipeline using AWS CodeBuild and an event-driven state machine using AWS Lambda. If an actor has permissions to change the behavior of the CodeBuild project or the Lambda function, they would be able to escalate their privileges. Prior to version 4.0.0, the bootstrap CodeBuild role provides access to the `sts:AssumeRole` operation without further restrictions. Therefore, it is able to assume into any AWS Account in the AWS Organization with the elevated privileges provided by the cross-account access role. By default, this role is not restricted when it is created by AWS Organizations, providing Administrator level access to the AWS resources in the AWS Account. The patches for this issue are included in `aws-deployment-framework` version 4.0.0. As a temporary mitigation, add a permissions boundary to the roles created by ADF in the management account. The permissions boundary should deny all IAM and STS actions. This permissions boundary should be in place until you upgrade ADF or bootstrap a new account. While the permissions boundary is in place, the account management and bootstrapping of accounts are unable to create, update, or assume into roles. This mitigates the privilege escalation risk, but also disables ADF's ability to create, manage, and bootstrap accounts. |
| CVE-2024-22279 | High | 2024-06-10 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Improper handling of requests in Routing Release > v0.273.0 and <= v0.297.0 allows an unauthenticated attacker to degrade the service availability of the Cloud Foundry deployment if performed at scale. |
| CVE-2024-4603 | Medium | 2024-05-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Issue summary: Checking excessively long DSA keys or parameters may be very slow. Impact summary: Applications that use the functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check a DSA public key or DSA parameters may experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. The functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() perform various checks on DSA parameters. Some of those computations take a long time if the modulus (`p` parameter) is too large. Trying to use a very large modulus is slow and OpenSSL will not allow using public keys with a modulus which is over 10,000 bits in length for signature verification. However the key and parameter check functions do not limit the modulus size when performing the checks. An application that calls EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. These functions are not called by OpenSSL itself on untrusted DSA keys so only applications that directly call these functions may be vulnerable. Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey and pkeyparam command line applications when using the `-check` option. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue. |
| CVE-2024-28781 | Medium | 2024-05-14 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.20, 7.1 through 7.1.2.16, 7.2 through 7.2.3.9, 7.3 through 7.3.2.4, and 8.0 through 8.0.0.1 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 285654. |
| CVE-2023-6237 | Medium | 2024-04-25 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Issue summary: Checking excessively long invalid RSA public keys may take a long time. Impact summary: Applications that use the function EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check RSA public keys may experience long delays. Where the key that is being checked has been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. When function EVP_PKEY_public_check() is called on RSA public keys, a computation is done to confirm that the RSA modulus, n, is composite. For valid RSA keys, n is a product of two or more large primes and this computation completes quickly. However, if n is an overly large prime, then this computation would take a long time. An application that calls EVP_PKEY_public_check() and supplies an RSA key obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. The function EVP_PKEY_public_check() is not called from other OpenSSL functions however it is called from the OpenSSL pkey command line application. For that reason that application is also vulnerable if used with the '-pubin' and '-check' options on untrusted data. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue. |
| CVE-2023-5675 | Medium | 2024-04-25 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A flaw was found in Quarkus. When a Quarkus RestEasy Classic or Reactive JAX-RS endpoint has its methods declared in the abstract Java class or customized by Quarkus extensions using the annotation processor, the authorization of these methods will not be enforced if it is enabled by either 'quarkus.security.jaxrs.deny-unannotated-endpoints' or 'quarkus.security.jaxrs.default-roles-allowed' properties. |
| CVE-2024-2961 | High | 2024-04-17 | Outside Waratek scope | Exploited | The iconv() function in the GNU C Library versions 2.39 and older may overflow the output buffer passed to it by up to 4 bytes when converting strings to the ISO-2022-CN-EXT character set, which may be used to crash an application or overwrite a neighbouring variable. |
| CVE-2024-21990 | Critical | 2024-04-17 | Not applicable | No public exploit | ONTAP Select Deploy administration utility versions 9.12.1.x, 9.13.1.x and 9.14.1.x contain hard-coded credentials that could allow an attacker to view Deploy configuration information and modify the account credentials. |
| CVE-2024-21989 | High | 2024-04-17 | Not applicable | No public exploit | ONTAP Select Deploy administration utility versions 9.12.1.x, 9.13.1.x and 9.14.1.x are susceptible to a vulnerability which when successfully exploited could allow a read-only user to escalate their privileges. |
| CVE-2024-23561 | Medium | 2024-04-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch is vulnerable to sensitive information disclosure vulnerability due to insufficient obfuscation of sensitive values. |
| CVE-2024-23560 | Medium | 2024-04-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch could be vulnerable to incomplete revocation of permissions when deleting a custom security resource type. |
| CVE-2024-23559 | Medium | 2024-04-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / Launch is generating an obsolete HTTP header. |
| CVE-2024-23558 | Medium | 2024-04-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch does not invalidate session after logout which could allow an authenticated user to impersonate another user on the system. |
| CVE-2024-22359 | Medium | 2024-04-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.20, 7.1 through 7.1.2.16, 7.2 through 7.2.3.9, 7.3 through 7.3.2.4 and IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.0.1 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 280897. |
| CVE-2024-22358 | High | 2024-04-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.20, 7.1 through 7.1.2.16, 7.2 through 7.2.3.9, 7.3 through 7.3.2.4 and IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.0.1 does not invalidate session after logout which could allow an authenticated user to impersonate another user on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 280896. |
| CVE-2024-22339 | Medium | 2024-04-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.20, 7.1 through 7.1.2.16, 7.2 through 7.2.3.9, 7.3 through 7.3.2.4 and IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.0.1 is vulnerable to a sensitive information due to insufficient obfuscation of sensitive values from some log files. IBM X-Force ID: 279979. |
| CVE-2024-22334 | Medium | 2024-04-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.20, 7.1 through 7.1.2.16, 7.2 through 7.2.3.9, 7.3 through 7.3.2.4 and IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0 through 8.0.0.1 could be vulnerable to incomplete revocation of permissions when deleting a custom security resource type. When deleting a custom security type, associated permissions of objects using that type may not be fully revoked. This could lead to incorrect reporting of permission configuration and unexpected privileges being retained. IBM X-Force ID: 279974. |
| CVE-2024-2398 | High | 2024-03-27 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | When an application tells libcurl it wants to allow HTTP/2 server push, and the amount of received headers for the push surpasses the maximum allowed limit (1000), libcurl aborts the server push. When aborting, libcurl inadvertently does not free all the previously allocated headers and instead leaks the memory. Further, this error condition fails silently and is therefore not easily detected by an application. |
| CVE-2024-2379 | Medium | 2024-03-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | libcurl skips the certificate verification for a QUIC connection under certain conditions, when built to use wolfSSL. If told to use an unknown/bad cipher or curve, the error path accidentally skips the verification and returns OK, thus ignoring any certificate problems. |
| CVE-2024-2004 | Low | 2024-03-27 | Not applicable | No public exploit | When a protocol selection parameter option disables all protocols without adding any then the default set of protocols would remain in the allowed set due to an error in the logic for removing protocols. The below command would perform a request to curl.se with a plaintext protocol which has been explicitly disabled. curl --proto -all,-http http://curl.se The flaw is only present if the set of selected protocols disables the entire set of available protocols, in itself a command with no practical use and therefore unlikely to be encountered in real situations. The curl security team has thus assessed this to be low severity bug. |
| CVE-2024-26641 | High | 2024-03-18 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ip6_tunnel: make sure to pull inner header in __ip6_tnl_rcv() syzbot found __ip6_tnl_rcv() could access unitiliazed data [1]. Call pskb_inet_may_pull() to fix this, and initialize ipv6h variable after this call as it can change skb->head. [1] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in __INET_ECN_decapsulate include/net/inet_ecn.h:253 [inline] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in INET_ECN_decapsulate include/net/inet_ecn.h:275 [inline] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in IP6_ECN_decapsulate+0x7df/0x1e50 include/net/inet_ecn.h:321 __INET_ECN_decapsulate include/net/inet_ecn.h:253 [inline] INET_ECN_decapsulate include/net/inet_ecn.h:275 [inline] IP6_ECN_decapsulate+0x7df/0x1e50 include/net/inet_ecn.h:321 ip6ip6_dscp_ecn_decapsulate+0x178/0x1b0 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:727 __ip6_tnl_rcv+0xd4e/0x1590 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:845 ip6_tnl_rcv+0xce/0x100 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:888 gre_rcv+0x143f/0x1870 ip6_protocol_deliver_rcu+0xda6/0x2a60 net/ipv6/ip6_input.c:438 ip6_input_finish net/ipv6/ip6_input.c:483 [inline] NF_HOOK include/linux/netfilter.h:314 [inline] ip6_input+0x15d/0x430 net/ipv6/ip6_input.c:492 ip6_mc_input+0xa7e/0xc80 net/ipv6/ip6_input.c:586 dst_input include/net/dst.h:461 [inline] ip6_rcv_finish+0x5db/0x870 net/ipv6/ip6_input.c:79 NF_HOOK include/linux/netfilter.h:314 [inline] ipv6_rcv+0xda/0x390 net/ipv6/ip6_input.c:310 __netif_receive_skb_one_core net/core/dev.c:5532 [inline] __netif_receive_skb+0x1a6/0x5a0 net/core/dev.c:5646 netif_receive_skb_internal net/core/dev.c:5732 [inline] netif_receive_skb+0x58/0x660 net/core/dev.c:5791 tun_rx_batched+0x3ee/0x980 drivers/net/tun.c:1555 tun_get_user+0x53af/0x66d0 drivers/net/tun.c:2002 tun_chr_write_iter+0x3af/0x5d0 drivers/net/tun.c:2048 call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2084 [inline] new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:497 [inline] vfs_write+0x786/0x1200 fs/read_write.c:590 ksys_write+0x20f/0x4c0 fs/read_write.c:643 __do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:655 [inline] __se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:652 [inline] __x64_sys_write+0x93/0xd0 fs/read_write.c:652 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x6d/0x140 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b Uninit was created at: slab_post_alloc_hook+0x129/0xa70 mm/slab.h:768 slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3478 [inline] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x5e9/0xb10 mm/slub.c:3523 kmalloc_reserve+0x13d/0x4a0 net/core/skbuff.c:560 __alloc_skb+0x318/0x740 net/core/skbuff.c:651 alloc_skb include/linux/skbuff.h:1286 [inline] alloc_skb_with_frags+0xc8/0xbd0 net/core/skbuff.c:6334 sock_alloc_send_pskb+0xa80/0xbf0 net/core/sock.c:2787 tun_alloc_skb drivers/net/tun.c:1531 [inline] tun_get_user+0x1e8a/0x66d0 drivers/net/tun.c:1846 tun_chr_write_iter+0x3af/0x5d0 drivers/net/tun.c:2048 call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2084 [inline] new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:497 [inline] vfs_write+0x786/0x1200 fs/read_write.c:590 ksys_write+0x20f/0x4c0 fs/read_write.c:643 __do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:655 [inline] __se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:652 [inline] __x64_sys_write+0x93/0xd0 fs/read_write.c:652 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x6d/0x140 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b CPU: 0 PID: 5034 Comm: syz-executor331 Not tainted 6.7.0-syzkaller-00562-g9f8413c4a66f #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 11/17/2023 |
| CVE-2024-26633 | Medium | 2024-03-18 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ip6_tunnel: fix NEXTHDR_FRAGMENT handling in ip6_tnl_parse_tlv_enc_lim() syzbot pointed out [1] that NEXTHDR_FRAGMENT handling is broken. Reading frag_off can only be done if we pulled enough bytes to skb->head. Currently we might access garbage. [1] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in ip6_tnl_parse_tlv_enc_lim+0x94f/0xbb0 ip6_tnl_parse_tlv_enc_lim+0x94f/0xbb0 ipxip6_tnl_xmit net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:1326 [inline] ip6_tnl_start_xmit+0xab2/0x1a70 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:1432 __netdev_start_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:4940 [inline] netdev_start_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:4954 [inline] xmit_one net/core/dev.c:3548 [inline] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x247/0xa10 net/core/dev.c:3564 __dev_queue_xmit+0x33b8/0x5130 net/core/dev.c:4349 dev_queue_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:3134 [inline] neigh_connected_output+0x569/0x660 net/core/neighbour.c:1592 neigh_output include/net/neighbour.h:542 [inline] ip6_finish_output2+0x23a9/0x2b30 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:137 ip6_finish_output+0x855/0x12b0 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:222 NF_HOOK_COND include/linux/netfilter.h:303 [inline] ip6_output+0x323/0x610 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:243 dst_output include/net/dst.h:451 [inline] ip6_local_out+0xe9/0x140 net/ipv6/output_core.c:155 ip6_send_skb net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1952 [inline] ip6_push_pending_frames+0x1f9/0x560 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1972 rawv6_push_pending_frames+0xbe8/0xdf0 net/ipv6/raw.c:582 rawv6_sendmsg+0x2b66/0x2e70 net/ipv6/raw.c:920 inet_sendmsg+0x105/0x190 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:847 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0x9c2/0xd60 net/socket.c:2584 ___sys_sendmsg+0x28d/0x3c0 net/socket.c:2638 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2667 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2676 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2674 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x307/0x490 net/socket.c:2674 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x44/0x110 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b Uninit was created at: slab_post_alloc_hook+0x129/0xa70 mm/slab.h:768 slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3478 [inline] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x5c9/0x970 mm/slub.c:3517 __do_kmalloc_node mm/slab_common.c:1006 [inline] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x118/0x3c0 mm/slab_common.c:1027 kmalloc_reserve+0x249/0x4a0 net/core/skbuff.c:582 pskb_expand_head+0x226/0x1a00 net/core/skbuff.c:2098 __pskb_pull_tail+0x13b/0x2310 net/core/skbuff.c:2655 pskb_may_pull_reason include/linux/skbuff.h:2673 [inline] pskb_may_pull include/linux/skbuff.h:2681 [inline] ip6_tnl_parse_tlv_enc_lim+0x901/0xbb0 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:408 ipxip6_tnl_xmit net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:1326 [inline] ip6_tnl_start_xmit+0xab2/0x1a70 net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c:1432 __netdev_start_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:4940 [inline] netdev_start_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:4954 [inline] xmit_one net/core/dev.c:3548 [inline] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x247/0xa10 net/core/dev.c:3564 __dev_queue_xmit+0x33b8/0x5130 net/core/dev.c:4349 dev_queue_xmit include/linux/netdevice.h:3134 [inline] neigh_connected_output+0x569/0x660 net/core/neighbour.c:1592 neigh_output include/net/neighbour.h:542 [inline] ip6_finish_output2+0x23a9/0x2b30 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:137 ip6_finish_output+0x855/0x12b0 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:222 NF_HOOK_COND include/linux/netfilter.h:303 [inline] ip6_output+0x323/0x610 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:243 dst_output include/net/dst.h:451 [inline] ip6_local_out+0xe9/0x140 net/ipv6/output_core.c:155 ip6_send_skb net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1952 [inline] ip6_push_pending_frames+0x1f9/0x560 net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:1972 rawv6_push_pending_frames+0xbe8/0xdf0 net/ipv6/raw.c:582 rawv6_sendmsg+0x2b66/0x2e70 net/ipv6/raw.c:920 inet_sendmsg+0x105/0x190 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:847 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0x9c2/0xd60 net/socket.c:2584 ___sys_sendmsg+0x28d/0x3c0 net/socket.c:2638 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2667 [inline] __do_sys_sendms ---truncated--- |
| CVE-2024-1979 | Low | 2024-03-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A vulnerability was found in Quarkus. In certain conditions related to the CI process, git credentials could be inadvertently published, which could put the git repository at risk. |
| CVE-2024-26462 | Medium | 2024-02-29 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | Kerberos 5 (aka krb5) 1.21.2 contains a memory leak vulnerability in /krb5/src/kdc/ndr.c. |
| CVE-2024-26461 | High | 2024-02-29 | Outside Waratek scope | Proof of concept only | Kerberos 5 (aka krb5) 1.21.2 contains a memory leak vulnerability in /krb5/src/lib/gssapi/krb5/k5sealv3.c. |
| CVE-2024-26458 | Medium | 2024-02-29 | Outside Waratek scope | No public exploit | Kerberos 5 (aka krb5) 1.21.2 contains a memory leak in /krb5/src/lib/rpc/pmap_rmt.c. |
| CVE-2024-22331 | Medium | 2024-02-06 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0 through 7.0.5.19, 7.1 through 7.1.2.15, 7.2 through 7.2.3.8, 7.3 through 7.3.2.3, and IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) - IBM DevOps Deploy 8.0.0.0 could disclose sensitive user information when installing the Windows agent. IBM X-Force ID: 279971. |
| CVE-2024-23550 | Medium | 2024-02-03 | Not applicable | No public exploit | HCL DevOps Deploy / HCL Launch (UCD) could disclose sensitive user information when installing the Windows agent. |
| CVE-2024-23613 | Critical | 2024-01-26 | Not applicable | No public exploit | A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Symantec Deployment Solution version 7.9 when parsing UpdateComputer tokens. A remote, anonymous attacker can exploit this vulnerability to achieve remote code execution as SYSTEM. |
| CVE-2023-34061 | High | 2024-01-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | Cloud Foundry routing release versions from v0.163.0 to v0.283.0 are vulnerable to a DOS attack. An unauthenticated attacker can use this vulnerability to force route pruning and therefore degrade the service availability of the Cloud Foundry deployment. |
| CVE-2023-47161 | Medium | 2023-12-20 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.1 through 7.1.2.14, 7.2 through 7.2.3.7, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.2 may mishandle input validation of an uploaded archive file leading to a denial of service due to resource exhaustion. IBM X-Force ID: 270799. |
| CVE-2023-42013 | Medium | 2023-12-20 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.1 through 7.1.2.14, 7.2 through 7.2.3.7, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information when a detailed technical error message is returned in the browser. This information could be used in further attacks against the system. IBM X-Force ID: 265510. |
| CVE-2023-42012 | Medium | 2023-12-20 | Not applicable | No public exploit | An IBM UrbanCode Deploy Agent 7.2 through 7.2.3.7, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.2 installed as a Windows service in a non-standard location could be subject to a denial of service attack by local accounts. IBM X-Force ID: 265509. |
| CVE-2023-42015 | Medium | 2023-12-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.1 through 7.1.2.14, 7.2 through 7.2.3.7, and 7.3 through 7.3.2.2 is vulnerable to HTML injection. This vulnerability may allow a user to embed arbitrary HTML tags in the Web UI potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure. IBM X-Force ID: 265512. |
| CVE-2023-50775 | Medium | 2023-12-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Deployment Dashboard Plugin 1.0.10 and earlier allows attackers to copy jobs. |
| CVE-2023-6105 | Medium | 2023-11-15 | Not applicable | No public exploit | An information disclosure vulnerability exists in multiple ManageEngine products that can result in encryption keys being exposed. A low-privileged OS user with access to the host where an affected ManageEngine product is installed can view and use the exposed key to decrypt product database passwords. This allows the user to access the ManageEngine product database. |