| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: qrtr: fix node refcount leak on ctrl packet alloc failure
qrtr_send_resume_tx() calls qrtr_node_lookup() which takes a
reference on the returned node. If the subsequent call to
qrtr_alloc_ctrl_packet() fails due to memory allocation failure, the
function returns -ENOMEM without calling qrtr_node_release() to
release the node reference.
Add qrtr_node_release(node) before returning on the allocation failure
path to properly release the reference. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ata: ahci: fail probe if BAR too small for claimed ports
When an AHCI controller is disabled in BIOS, its HOST_CAP register may
contain a bogus value, e.g. 0xFFFFFFFF.
Since CAP.NP (Number of Ports) is a zeroes based 5-bit register field,
a value of 0x1f means 32 ports. If CAP.NP claims more ports than can
physically fit within the mapped BAR region, accessing port registers
beyond the BAR boundary causes a kernel panic.
Add validation in ahci_init_one() to check that the BAR size is
sufficient for the number of ports claimed in CAP.NP. The check
calculates the required MMIO size as:
required_size = 0x100 (global registers) + max_ports * 0x80
If required_size exceeds the actual BAR size, the probe fails with
-ENODEV, preventing the panic and providing a clear error message.
[cassel: commit log] |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf/ftrace: Fix WARNING in __unregister_ftrace_function
perf_ftrace_function_unregister() unconditionally calls
unregister_ftrace_function() without checking whether the ftrace_ops
was ever successfully registered. This triggers a WARN_ON in
__unregister_ftrace_function() when the ops doesn't have
FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED set.
This can happen during perf_event_alloc() error cleanup when
perf_trace_destroy() is called via __free_event() on an event whose
ftrace_ops registration failed or was already torn down by
perf_try_init_event()'s err_destroy path.
The call path is:
perf_event_alloc() error cleanup
-> __free_event()
-> event->destroy() [tp_perf_event_destroy]
-> perf_trace_destroy()
-> perf_trace_event_close()
-> TRACE_REG_PERF_CLOSE
-> perf_ftrace_function_unregister()
-> unregister_ftrace_function()
-> __unregister_ftrace_function()
-> WARN_ON(!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED))
Fix this by checking FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED before attempting to
unregister. If the ops is not enabled, just free the filter and
return success. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ACPICA: Add validation for node in acpi_ns_build_normalized_path()
Add validation for node in acpi_ns_build_normalized_path()
to prevent use-after-free vulnerabilities. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ACPICA: Fix condition check in acpi_ps_parse_loop()
Fix condition check for AML_ELSE_OP in acpi_ps_parse_loop() to prevent
out-of-bounds access. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: addrconf: fix temp address generation after prefix deprecation
When a router temporarily deprecates an IPv6 prefix (either by sending a
Router Advertisement with Preferred Lifetime = 0 or by letting the
lifetime expire) and later restores it, the kernel permanently loses its
ability to generate temporary privacy addresses (RFC 8981) for that
prefix.
This happens because the address worker attempts to generate a
replacement temporary address when the current one nears expiration. As
the base prefix is deprecated already, the generation fails after
marking the temporary address as already having spawned a replacement
(ifp->regen_count++).
When the router eventually restores the prefix, the temporary address
becomes active again. However, once it naturally expires, the address
worker sees this temporary address already tried to generate one and
skips the regeneration.
Fix the issue by resetting the regen_count check of the latest temp
address generated for the prefix updated by the incoming RA. |
| MQTT WebSocket setter ABI mismatch may disclose memory or cause a crash |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to a path traversal weakness in an administrative import function allowed an authenticated administrator to write files to arbitrary locations on the server. This could potentially be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the underlying system. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Unsafe Reflection and does not sufficiently restrict the code that the mail-processing pipeline could load from an imported rule configuration. An authenticated administrator with mail-rule configuration privileges could cause the gateway to load and execute code beyond the approved set of mail-processing components, potentially in the context of the mail-gateway service account. |
| 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. |
| An authenticated Email Protection Gateway administrator holding only limited, delegated permissions could write files with attacker-controlled content to arbitrary locations accessible to the Email Protection Gateway service account. This exceeds the administrator's intended privileges and could be used to alter application files and configuration or to disrupt the availability of the service. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently restrict which account a certificate could be assigned to. This could allow an attacker to associate a certificate with another user's account, affecting the confidentiality and integrity of that account's encrypted mail and, where certificate-based login is enabled, potentially permitting unauthorized access to the account. |
| A resource exhaustion vulnerability in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly trigger a comparatively expensive server-side operation, causing a partial denial of service. |
| An unauthenticated attacker could cause a file with attacker-controlled content to be written to the appliance filesystem through an administrative upload handler that did not properly authenticate the request. This did not by itself result in code execution, which would require a separate vulnerability to place the file in an executable location. |
| An authorization check in the large file exchange feature of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not correctly establish that the requesting user was a party to the package being requested. An authenticated user of that optional feature could read the subject, message body, and attachments of packages they neither sent nor received. |
| On a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway cluster with database replication enabled, a party trusted by the cluster could submit a crafted serialized object that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing code execution as the gateway service account. Replication is disabled by default, and exploitation requires control of a trusted cluster peer or administrative access to the appliance. |
| 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. |
