| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| An insufficient session expiration vulnerability [CWE-613] in FortiSandbox FortiSandbox version 4.4.4 and below, version 4.2.6 and below, 4.0 all versions, 3.2 all versions and FortiIsolator version 2.4 and below, 2.3 all versions, 2.2 all versions, 2.1 all versions, 2.0 all versions, 1.2 all versions may allow a remote attacker in possession of an admin session cookie to keep using that admin's session even after the admin user was deleted. |
| An improper access control vulnerability [CWE-284] in FortiEDRCollectorWindows version 5.2.0.4549 and below, 5.0.3.1007 and below, 4.0 all may allow a local attacker to prevent the collector service to start in the next system reboot by tampering with some registry keys of the service. |
| A Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability [CWE-321] in FortiSandbox version 4.4.6 and below, version 4.2.7 and below, version 4.0.5 and below, version 3.2.4 and below, version 3.1.5 and below, version 3.0.7 to 3.0.5 may allow a privileged attacker with super-admin profile and CLI access to read sensitive data via CLI. |
| A improper handling of parameters in Fortinet FortiWeb versions 7.6.3 and below, versions 7.4.7 and below, versions 7.2.10 and below, and 7.0.10 and below may allow an unauthenticated remote attacker with non-public information pertaining to the device and targeted user to gain admin privileges on the device via a specially crafted request. |
| An Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization vulnerability [CWE-653] in Fortinet FortiSandbox 5.0.0 through 5.0.1, FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.7, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox 4.0 all versions may allow an unauthenticated attacker to evade the sandboxing scan via a crafted file. |
| An Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability [CWE-78] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox 5.0.0 through 5.0.2, FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.7, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox 4.0 all versions may allow an authenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code on the underlying system via crafted HTTP requests. |
| Multiple improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS Command vulnerabilities [CWE-78] in FortiSandbox before 4.4.5 allows a privileged attacker to execute unauthorized commands via crafted requests. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiOS 6.2 all versions, 6.4 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.10, 7.2.0 and FortiProxy 1.2 all versions, 2.0 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.9, 7.2.0 through 7.2.3 may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the vulnerable device and the remote FortiGuard's map server. |
| Exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor in Desktop Windows Manager allows an authorized attacker to disclose information locally. |
| An improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability [CWE-78] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox 5.0.0 through 5.0.2, FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.7, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox 4.0 all versions, FortiSandbox Cloud 24.1, FortiSandbox Cloud 23 all versions allows a remote privileged attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted HTTP or HTTPS requests. |
| A improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.1, FortiManager 7.4.1 through 7.4.3, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.3, FortiOS 7.6.0, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.4, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.9, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.15, FortiOS 6.4.0 through 6.4.15, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.5, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.18, FortiProxy 2.0 all versions, FortiProxy 1.2 all versions, FortiProxy 1.1 all versions, FortiProxy 1.0 all versions may allow a remote authenticated attacker with access to the security fabric interface and port to write arbitrary files or a remote unauthenticated attacker to delete an arbitrary folder |
| An Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability [CWE-79] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiSandbox 5.0.0 through 5.0.2, FortiSandbox 4.4.0 through 4.4.7, FortiSandbox 4.2 all versions, FortiSandbox 4.0 all versions may allow an attacker to perform an XSS attack via crafted HTTP requests. |
| hermes is an implementation of the HERMES workflow to automatize software publication with rich metadata. From 0.8.1 to before 0.9.1, hermes subcommands take arbitrary options under the -O argument. These have been logged in raw form. If users provide sensitive data such as API tokens (e.g., via hermes deposit -O invenio_rdm.auth_token SECRET), these are written to the log file in plain text, making them available to whoever can access the log file. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.9.1. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC ET 200AL IM 157-1 PN (6ES7157-1AB00-0AB0) (All versions), SIMATIC ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF (6ES7155-5AA00-0AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 MF HF (6ES7155-6MU00-0CN0) (All versions), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HA (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions < V1.3), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN R1 (6ES7155-6AU00-0HM0) (All versions < V6.0.1), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN/2 HF (6ES7155-6AU01-0CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIMATIC ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN/3 HF (6ES7155-6AU30-0CN0) (All versions < V4.2.2), SIMATIC PN/MF Coupler (6ES7158-3MU10-0XA0) (All versions), SIMATIC PN/PN Coupler (6ES7158-3AD10-0XA0) (All versions < V6.0.0), SIPLUS ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF (6AG1155-5AA00-2AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF (6AG1155-5AA00-7AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200MP IM 155-5 PN HF T1 RAIL (6AG2155-5AA00-1AC0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF (6AG1155-6AU01-2CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF (6AG1155-6AU01-7CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF T1 RAIL (6AG2155-6AU01-1CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS ET 200SP IM 155-6 PN HF TX RAIL (6AG2155-6AU01-4CN0) (All versions >= V4.2.0), SIPLUS NET PN/PN Coupler (6AG2158-3AD10-4XA0) (All versions < V6.0.0). Affected devices do not properly handle S7 protocol session disconnect requests. When receiving a valid S7 protocol Disconnect Request (COTP DR TPDU) on TCP port 102, the devices enter an improper session state.
This could allow an attacker to cause the device to become unresponsive, leading to a denial-of-service condition that requires a power cycle to restore normal operation. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in TeleControl Server Basic (All versions < V3.1.2.4). Affected application contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability that could allow an attacker to run arbitrary code with elevated privileges. |
| The Dreamer Blog WordPress theme through 1.2 is vulnerable to arbitrary installations due to a missing capability check. |
| The WP Duplicate Page plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to missing capability checks on the 'duplicateBulkHandle' and 'duplicateBulkHandleHPOS' functions in all versions up to, and including, 1.8. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to duplicate arbitrary posts, pages, and WooCommerce HPOS orders even when their role is explicitly excluded from the plugin's "Allowed User Roles" setting, potentially exposing sensitive information and allowing duplicate fulfillment of WooCommerce orders. |
| The E-xact | Hosted Payment | WordPress plugin through 2.0 is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary files on the server. |
| An unauthenticated remote attacker can trick a high privileged user into uploading a malicious payload via the config-upload endpoint, leading to code injection as root. This results in a total loss of confidentiality, availability and integrity due to improper control of code generation ('Code Injection’). |
| Affected devices do not properly enforce user authentication on specific API endpoints. This could facilitate an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent authentication and impersonate a legitimate user. Successful exploitation requires that the attacker has learned the identity of a legitimate user. |
