| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Cilium is a networking, observability, and security solution with an eBPF-based dataplane. An attacker with the ability to update pod labels can cause Cilium to apply incorrect network policies. This issue arises due to the fact that on pod update, Cilium incorrectly uses user-provided pod labels to select the policies which apply to the workload in question. This can affect Cilium network policies that use the namespace, service account or cluster constructs to restrict traffic, Cilium clusterwide network policies that use Cilium namespace labels to select the Pod and Kubernetes network policies. Non-existent construct names can be provided, which bypass all network policies applicable to the construct. For example, providing a pod with a non-existent namespace as the value of the `io.kubernetes.pod.namespace` label results in none of the namespaced CiliumNetworkPolicies applying to the pod in question. This attack requires the attacker to have Kubernetes API Server access, as described in the Cilium Threat Model. This issue has been resolved in: Cilium versions 1.14.2, 1.13.7, and 1.12.14. Users are advised to upgrade. As a workaround an admission webhook can be used to prevent pod label updates to the `k8s:io.kubernetes.pod.namespace` and `io.cilium.k8s.policy.*` keys. |
| Tekton Pipelines project provides k8s-style resources for declaring CI/CD-style pipelines. Starting in version 0.35.0, pipelines do not validate child UIDs, which means that a user that has access to create TaskRuns can create their own Tasks that the Pipelines controller will accept as the child Task. While the software stores and validates the PipelineRun's (api version, kind, name, uid) in the child Run's OwnerReference, it only store (api version, kind, name) in the ChildStatusReference. This means that if a client had access to create TaskRuns on a cluster, they could create a child TaskRun for a pipeline with the same name + owner reference, and the Pipeline controller picks it up as if it was the original TaskRun. This is problematic since it can let users modify the config of Pipelines at runtime, which violates SLSA L2 Service Generated / Non-falsifiable requirements. This issue can be used to trick the Pipeline controller into associating unrelated Runs to the Pipeline, feeding its data through the rest of the Pipeline. This requires access to create TaskRuns, so impact may vary depending on one Tekton setup. If users already have unrestricted access to create any Task/PipelineRun, this does not grant any additional capabilities. As of time of publication, there are no known patches for this issue. |
|
An insufficient verification of data vulnerability exists in BIG-IP Edge Client for Windows and macOS that may allow an attacker to modify its configured server list. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated. |
| Insufficient verification of data authenticity in Zoom Desktop Client for Windows before 5.14.5 may allow an authenticated user to enable an escalation of privilege via network access. |
| In PHPJabbers Cleaning Business Software 1.0, lack of verification when changing an email address and/or password (on the Profile Page) allows remote attackers to take over accounts. |
| In PHP Jabbers Class Scheduling System 1.0, lack of verification when changing an email address and/or password (on the Profile Page) allows remote attackers to take over accounts. |
| IBM Aspera Faspex 5.0.5 could allow a remote attacked to bypass IP restrictions due to improper access controls. IBM X-Force ID: 259649. |
| ManageEngine ADSelfService Plus GINA Client Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity Authentication Bypass Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of ManageEngine ADSelfService Plus. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the Password Reset Portal used by the GINA client. The issue results from the lack of proper authentication of data received via HTTP. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to bypass authentication and execute code in the context of SYSTEM. Was ZDI-CAN-17009. |
| A GRE dataset file within Systems Manager can be tampered with and distributed to PCUs.
|
| The firmware update package for the wireless card is not properly signed and can be modified. |
| AMI MegaRAC SPx12 and SPx13 devices have Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. |
| Versions of the package sidekiq before 7.1.3 are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) due to insufficient checks in the dashboard-charts.js file. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by manipulating the localStorage value which will cause excessive polling requests. |
| Use of Less Trusted Source vulnerability in SolidWP Solid Security allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects Solid Security: from n/a through 9.3.1. |
| Patlite NH-FB v1.46 and below was discovered to contain insufficient firmware validation during the upgrade firmware file upload process. This vulnerability allows authenticated attackers to create and upload their own custom-built firmware and inject malicious code. NOTE: the vendor's position is that this is a design choice, not a vulnerability |
| A vulnerability has been identified in LOGO! 8 BM (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V8.3). Affected devices load firmware updates without checking the authenticity. Furthermore the integrity of the unencrypted firmware is only verified by a non-cryptographic method. This could allow an attacker to manipulate a firmware update and flash it to the device. |
| HashiCorp Boundary up to 0.10.1 did not properly perform data integrity checks to ensure the resources were associated with the correct scopes, allowing potential privilege escalation for authorized users of another scope. Fixed in Boundary 0.10.2. |
| A CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability exists that could cause loading of unauthorized firmware images due to improper verification of the firmware signature. Affected Products: X80 advanced RTU Communication Module (BMENOR2200H) (V2.01 and later), OPC UA Modicon Communication Module (BMENUA0100) (V1.10 and prior) |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEMA Remote Connect Server (All versions < V3.1). The application does not perform the integrity check of the update packages. Without validation, an admin user might be tricked to install a malicious package, granting root privileges to an attacker. |
| Due to insufficient input validation, SAP Business Objects - version 420, allows an authenticated attacker to submit a malicious request through an allowed operation. On successful exploitation, an attacker can view or modify information causing a limited impact on confidentiality and integrity of the application. |
| Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager (SM and FSC) through 2022-05-06 has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. According to FSCT-2022-0053, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager insufficient logic security controls issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell FSC runtime (FSC-CPU, QPP), Honeywell Safety Builder. The potential impact is: Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service. The Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager family of safety controllers utilize the unauthenticated Safety Builder protocol (FSCT-2022-0051) for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the controller. Control logic is downloaded to the controller on a block-by-block basis. The logic that is downloaded consists of FLD code compiled to native machine code for the CPU module (which applies to both the Safety Manager and FSC families). Since this logic does not seem to be cryptographically authenticated, it allows an attacker capable of triggering a logic download to execute arbitrary machine code on the controller's CPU module in the context of the runtime. While the researchers could not verify this in detail, the researchers believe that the microprocessor underpinning the FSC and Safety Manager CPU modules is incapable of offering memory protection or privilege separation capabilities which would give an attacker full control of the CPU module. There is no authentication on control logic downloaded to the controller. Memory protection and privilege separation capabilities for the runtime are possibly lacking. The researchers confirmed the issues in question on Safety Manager R145.1 and R152.2 but suspect the issue affects all FSC and SM controllers and associated Safety Builder versions regardless of software or firmware revision. An attacker who can communicate with a Safety Manager controller via the Safety Builder protocol can execute arbitrary code without restrictions on the CPU module, allowing for covert manipulation of control operations and implanting capabilities similar to the TRITON malware (MITRE ATT&CK software ID S1009). A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position. |
