| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Java implementation of AMF3 deserializers used in GraniteDS, version 3.1.1.G, may allow instantiation of arbitrary classes via their public parameter-less constructor and subsequently call arbitrary Java Beans setter methods. The ability to exploit this vulnerability depends on the availability of classes in the class path that make use of deserialization. A remote attacker with the ability to spoof or control information may be able to send serialized Java objects with pre-set properties that result in arbitrary code execution when deserialized. |
| Server Side Request Forgery in Apache Solr, versions 1.3 until 7.6 (inclusive). Since the "shards" parameter does not have a corresponding whitelist mechanism, a remote attacker with access to the server could make Solr perform an HTTP GET request to any reachable URL. |
| A vulnerability was found in Ariadne Component Library up to 2.x. It has been classified as critical. Affected is an unknown function of the file src/url/Url.php. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. Upgrading to version 3.0 is able to address this issue. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-217140. |
| IBM Tivoli Monitoring V6 6.2.3 and 6.3.0 could allow an unauthenticated user to remotely execute code through unspecified methods. IBM X-Force ID: 137034. |
| Multiple IBM Rational products are vulnerable to HTML injection. A remote attacker could inject malicious HTML code, which when viewed, would be executed in the victim's Web browser within the security context of the hosting site. IBM X-Force ID: 135655. |
| IBM Security QRadar SIEM 7.2 and 7.3 could allow an unauthenticated user to execute code remotely with lower level privileges under unusual circumstances. IBM X-Force ID: 134810. |
| IBM Quality Manager (RQM) 5.0.x and 6.0 through 6.0.5 are vulnerable to HTML injection. A remote attacker could inject malicious HTML code, which when viewed, would be executed in the victim's Web browser within the security context of the hosting site. IBM X-Force ID: 126231. |
| IBM Quality Manager (RQM) 5.0.x and 6.0 through 6.0.5 are vulnerable to HTML injection. A remote attacker could inject malicious HTML code, which when viewed, would be executed in the victim's Web browser within the security context of the hosting site. IBM X-Force ID: 124628. |
| IBM Quality Manager (RQM) 5.0.x and 6.0 through 6.0.5 are vulnerable to HTML injection. A remote attacker could inject malicious HTML code, which when viewed, would be executed in the victim's Web browser within the security context of the hosting site. IBM X-Force ID: 124524. |
| oauth2-server (aka node-oauth2-server) through 3.1.1 implements OAuth 2.0 without PKCE. It does not prevent authorization code injection. This is similar to CVE-2020-7692. NOTE: the vendor states 'As RFC7636 is an extension, I think the claim in the Readme of "RFC 6749 compliant" is valid and not misleading and I also therefore wouldn't describe this as a "vulnerability" with the library per se. |
| An issue was discovered in Mattermost Server before 3.8.2, 3.7.5, and 3.6.7. Weak hashing was used for e-mail invitations, OAuth, and e-mail verification tokens. |
| send_email in graphite-web/webapp/graphite/composer/views.py in Graphite through 1.1.5 is vulnerable to SSRF. The vulnerable SSRF endpoint can be used by an attacker to have the Graphite web server request any resource. The response to this SSRF request is encoded into an image file and then sent to an e-mail address that can be supplied by the attacker. Thus, an attacker can exfiltrate any information. |
| An issue was discovered in the hyper crate before 0.9.18 for Rust. It mishandles newlines in headers. |
| cPanel before 62.0.17 allows demo accounts to execute code via the Htaccess::setphppreference API (SEC-232). |
| In the Automattic WooCommerce plugin before 3.2.4 for WordPress, an attack is possible after gaining access to the target site with a user account that has at least Shop manager privileges. The attacker then constructs a specifically crafted string that will turn into a PHP object injection involving the includes/shortcodes/class-wc-shortcode-products.php WC_Shortcode_Products::get_products() use of cached queries within shortcodes. |
| The DefaultOSWorkflowConfigurator class in Jira Server and Jira Data Center before version 8.18.1 allows remote attackers who can trick a system administrator to import their malicious workflow to execute arbitrary code via a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability. The vulnerability allowed for various problematic OSWorkflow classes to be used as part of workflows. The fix for this issue blocks usage of unsafe conditions, validators, functions and registers that are build-in into OSWorkflow library and other Jira dependencies. Atlassian-made functions or functions provided by 3rd party plugins are not affected by this fix. |
| The administration SMTP configuration resource in Atlassian Crowd before version 2.10.2 allows remote attackers with administration rights to execute arbitrary code via a JNDI injection. |
| The OAuth status rest resource in Atlassian Application Links before version 5.2.7, from 5.3.0 before 5.3.4 and from 5.4.0 before 5.4.3 allows remote attackers with administrative rights to access the content of internal network resources via a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) by creating an OAuth application link to a location they control and then redirecting access from the linked location's OAuth status rest resource to an internal location. When running in an environment like Amazon EC2, this flaw maybe used to access to a metadata resource that provides access credentials and other potentially confidential information. |
| The Github repository importer in Atlassian Bitbucket Server before version 5.3.0 allows remote attackers to determine if a service they could not otherwise reach has open ports via a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. |
| BMC Remedy Mid Tier 9.1SP3 is affected by remote and local file inclusion. Due to the lack of restrictions on what can be targeted, the system can be vulnerable to attacks such as system fingerprinting, internal port scanning, Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF), or remote code execution (RCE). |
