| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value (CWE-789) in the ES|QL query processing of Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user able to submit ES|QL queries could send a specially crafted query whose evaluation allocates an unbounded amount of heap memory, exhausting the available heap on the receiving node and causing the node to become unavailable. |
| Parsing an invalid SVCB or HTTPS RR can panic when the size of a parameter value overflows the message buffer. |
| Budibase versions before 3.40.0 contain an authorization/authentication bypass in the PUT /api/global/users/tenant/owner (changeTenantOwnerEmail) endpoint. On self-hosted instances (SELF_HOSTED or DISABLE_ACCOUNT_PORTAL set), the cloudRestricted middleware is a no-op and the route is protected only by a general authentication check, so any authenticated user — including a lowest-privilege BASIC app user — can reassign the tenant account-holder (top-privilege admin) email to an attacker-controlled address. The attacker can then use the public password-reset flow to take over the admin account, leading to full administrative access. |
| A flaw has been found in EnzoVezzaro mcp-dominican-layer up to 39dd373786712650097ad31db27d5c477c8f9c82. The affected element is the function axios.get of the file src/index.ts of the component parse-csv tool. This manipulation of the argument csvUrl causes server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet. |
| In CPSD CryptoPro Secure Disk for Bitlocker before v7.7.4, bootxsa.efi fails to properly validate LUKS encryption and, if encryption is present, all CryptoPro file integrity checks are skipped. |
| ServiceTalk HTTP/1.x incorrectly handles malformed Transfer-Encoding which could result in request smuggling attacks. This vulnerability is addressed in servicetalk version 0.42.65. |
| Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Hydra Booking <= 1.2.2 versions. |
| Subscriber Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in Accordion <= 3.0.6 versions. |
| Unauthenticated Broken Access Control in Anti Spam and list cleaner – AcyChecker <= 2.0.0 versions. |
| A flaw has been found in Tenda CH, CP and TX3 V21.x/V22.x/V25.x/V26.x/V27.x. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the component SSH. Executing a manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded password. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The attack requires a high level of complexity. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been published and may be used. |
| Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (CWE-94) in Fleet Server can lead to the execution of attacker-supplied script content via Code Injection (CAPEC-242). Kibana accepted an identifier for an output configuration without restricting it to safe characters. That identifier is later placed into a server-side script that Fleet Server builds as part of routine agent policy processing, so script syntax embedded in the identifier became part of the script that was executed rather than being treated as data. |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to cross-space information disclosure and unauthorized data modification via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). Kibana Machine Learning carries out its Elasticsearch operations with elevated internal permissions and relies on a per-request space filter to keep the machine learning data of one space separated from another. Part of the Machine Learning functionality did not apply that filter, so operations issued from one space were carried out against the machine learning data of every space in the deployment. |
| The Elastic Security capability that suggests existing field values while a user authors endpoint policy artifacts queries Elastic Defend event data with Kibana's internal Elasticsearch account instead of the account of the requesting user. Only Kibana feature privileges are verified, and the caller's Elasticsearch index privileges are not. An authenticated user who holds Elastic Security feature privileges but no read access to the Elastic Defend event indices can therefore retrieve field values from that data, including process command line arguments, which commonly contain tokens, credentials, connection strings, and other sensitive operational detail from protected hosts. |
| A Kibana Machine Learning capability that removes a saved object from the current space accepts machine learning trained models as a target, but it verifies only the privileges that apply to anomaly detection jobs and data frame analytics jobs. A user whose role grants create anomaly detection jobs and data frame analytics jobs without the trained model privilege can therefore remove a trained model from a space. The model itself is not deleted and remains available in its other spaces, and the change can be reversed by a suitably privileged user. |
| A lower privileged user who holds only the privilege to read agent policies can read the entire configuration of a configured Fleet proxy. This would normally require the Fleet privilege to read settings.The proxy configuration possibly contains proxy authentication credentials and private key material that they should not be authorized to view. |
| The state that Kibana stores for an Observability Onboarding flow is not bound to the user who created the flow, and the routes that read and update that state do not verify ownership. An authenticated user who holds only generic read access to the space can therefore discover the onboarding flows of other users, read their onboarding state, and write arbitrary progress data into them. A tampered flow can also cause the owner's onboarding view to fail with a server error. |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). An internal Kibana data retrieval capability used by Elastic Defend endpoint response actions did not enforce the Security Solution and endpoint privileges that its user-facing equivalents require, and it retrieved data with elevated internal permissions rather than the permissions of the requesting user. As a result, an authenticated low-privileged Kibana user with no Security Solution privileges, endpoint privileges and no Elasticsearch privileges on the underlying data, could read endpoint response action records and the corresponding response content returned by managed hosts. |
| Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Fleet Server can lead to information disclosure via Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (CAPEC-77). The authorization decision for artifact downloads relied on a client-supplied value that was persisted without being validated against the server-side record of the requesting agent's assignment. An authenticated party in possession of a valid enrolled agent credential could therefore retrieve a policy the agent is not assigned to. |
| Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (CWE-915) in the case management functionality of Elastic Security in Kibana can lead to unauthorized modification of case data by an authenticated user who has not been granted case editing privileges, via Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (CAPEC-77). Object attributes accepted by the case management API were not subject to the same authorization enforcement applied in the user interface, so a low-privileged user could alter case records they were only entitled to view. |
| Kibana Agent Builder determines whether a caller owns a private agent by comparing a stable user identifier when one is recorded, and falling back to a comparison of the username when it is not. A username is not unique across Elasticsearch authentication realms, so two distinct principals that share a username in different realms are treated as the same owner. This discloses the configuration and instructions of an agent the caller does not own, and allows that agent to be altered or removed. |
