| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Uncontrolled search path element vulnerability in Backup Management functionality in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.4-25556-8, 7.0.1-42218-7 and 7.1-42661 allows remote authenticated users with administrator privileges to read or write arbitrary files via unspecified vectors. |
| Improper neutralization of special elements in output used by a downstream component ('Injection') vulnerability in Security Advisor report management component in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via unspecified vectors. |
| Improper neutralization of special elements in output used by a downstream component ('Injection') vulnerability in file sharing management component in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via unspecified vectors. |
| Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor vulnerability in webapi component in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors. |
| Improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('Path Traversal') in cgi component in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.4-25553 allows local users to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors. |
| There is a use-after-free issue in all samba 4.9.x versions before 4.9.18, all samba 4.10.x versions before 4.10.12 and all samba 4.11.x versions before 4.11.5, essentially due to a call to realloc() while other local variables still point at the original buffer. |
| Use of insufficiently random values vulnerability in User Management Functionality in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 7.2-64561 allows remote attackers to obtain user credential via unspecified vectors. |
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in Log Management functionality in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 7.0.1-42218-2 allows remote attackers to inject SQL commands via unspecified vectors. |
| Use After Free vulnerability in iscsi_snapshot_comm_core in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted web requests. |
| A vulnerability was found in Samba from version (including) 4.9 to versions before 4.9.6 and 4.10.2. During the creation of a new Samba AD DC, files are created in a private subdirectory of the install location. This directory is typically mode 0700, that is owner (root) only access. However in some upgraded installations it will have other permissions, such as 0755, because this was the default before Samba 4.8. Within this directory, files are created with mode 0666, which is world-writable, including a sample krb5.conf, and the list of DNS names and servicePrincipalName values to update. |
| Out-of-bounds write vulnerability in synoagentregisterd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via syno_finder_site HTTP header. |
| Cleartext transmission of sensitive information vulnerability in synorelayd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers via an HTTP session. |
| Improper neutralization of special elements in output used by a downstream component ('Injection') vulnerability in work flow management in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 7.0.1-42218-2 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors. |
| Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor vulnerability in Web Server in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 7.0.1-42218-2 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory. |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. |
