| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Starlet versions before 0.33 for Perl send a body in responses to HEAD requests, corrupting the next response on a persistent or pipelined connection.
The request method is not passed to the response writer, so whatever body the application returns for a HEAD request is sent. With Plack::Middleware::Head the body is empty, but an HTTP/1.1 response without a Content-Length header still gets the chunked encoding terminator. Responses with status 204 or 304 are also sent with their body.
Pipelined GET and HEAD requests keep the connection open even when keep-alive is disabled, which is the default. A client or proxy reading the connection takes the extra bytes as the start of the next response, which may desynchronize a proxy that shares the connection across clients. |
| In getRingtone of RingtoneFactory.java, there is a possible unprivileged access risk due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in the Editor component (@progress/kendo-vue-editor) in Progress Software Kendo UI for Vue versions 2.7.1 through 10.0.0 allows a low-privileged attacker who can supply Editor content to execute arbitrary JavaScript in another user's browser via an unsafe URL entered in the Insert Link or Insert Image dialog, which runs when the user clicks the resulting link. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| A flaw was found in the RPM Package Manager (RPM). A local user could be affected by a heap buffer overflow vulnerability when processing a specially crafted NDB database file. This issue arises from an error in how RPM handles certain calculations during file parsing, leading to an incorrect memory allocation. An attacker could leverage this to cause a denial of service, making the system unavailable. |
| A flaw was found in libsoup. A remote attacker, by controlling the method parameter of the `soup_message_new()` function, could inject arbitrary headers and additional request data. This vulnerability, known as CRLF (Carriage Return Line Feed) injection, occurs because the method value is not properly escaped during request line construction, potentially leading to HTTP request injection. |
| A flaw was found in libsoup, a library used by applications to send network requests. This vulnerability occurs because libsoup does not properly validate hostnames, allowing special characters to be injected into HTTP headers. A remote attacker could exploit this to perform HTTP smuggling, where they can send hidden, malicious requests alongside legitimate ones. In certain situations, this could lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), enabling an attacker to force the server to make unauthorized requests to other internal or external systems. The impact is low, as SoupServer is not actually used in internet infrastructure. |
| IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.6.0, and 2.3.6.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. |
| IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.6.0, and 2.3.6.1 is vulnerable to cross site scripting. The web app user‑supplied input is not properly sanitized or HTML‑encoded before being stored and rendered. An authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by entering specially crafted payloads containing malicious JavaScript which are saved within the app and later executed automatically when user views affected pages, resulting in Stored Cross‑Site Scripting (Stored XSS). |
