CVE Database

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a security mitigation bypass vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a security mitigation bypass vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a business logic error vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to privilege escalation.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a defense-in-depth security mitigation vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a command injection vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a command injection vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a security mitigation bypass vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a security mitigation bypass vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a command injection vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Magento versions 2.3.4 and earlier, 2.2.11 and earlier (see note), 1.14.4.4 and earlier, and 1.9.4.4 and earlier have a command injection vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution.

Zyxel CloudCNM SecuManager 3.1.0 and 3.1.1 allows use of live/CPEManager/AXCampaignManager/delete_cpes_by_ids?cpe_ids= for eval injection of Python code.

The traceroute (aka node-traceroute) package through 1.0.0 for Node.js allows remote command injection via the host parameter. This occurs because the Child.exec() method, which is considered to be not entirely safe, is used. In particular, an OS command can be placed after a newline character.

Stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Vigor3900, Vigor2960, and Vigor300B with firmware before 1.5.1.1.

On Draytek Vigor3900, Vigor2960, and Vigor 300B devices before 1.5.1.1, there are some command-injection vulnerabilities in the mainfunction.cgi file.

Xiaomi router R3600 ROM before 1.0.50 is affected by a vulnerability when checking backup file in c_upload interface let attacker able to extract malicious file under any location in /tmp, lead to possible RCE and DoS

An issue was discovered on Xiaomi Mi Jia ink-jet printer < 3.4.6_0138. Injecting parameters to ippserver through the web management background, resulting in command execution vulnerabilities.

In Xiaomi router R3600, ROM version<1.0.20, a connect service suffers from an injection vulnerability through the web interface, leading to a stack overflow or remote code execution.

In Xiaomi router R3600, ROM version<1.0.20, the connection service can be injected through the web interface, resulting in stack overflow or remote code execution.

Bitrix24 through 20.0.975 allows SSRF via an intranet IP address in the services/main/ajax.php?action=attachUrlPreview url parameter, if the destination URL hosts an HTML document containing '<meta name="og:image" content="' followed by an intranet URL.

A buffer overflow in the M_LoadDefaults function in m_misc.c in id Tech 1 (aka Doom engine) allows arbitrary code execution via an unsafe usage of fscanf, because it does not limit the number of characters to be read in a format argument.

MiR robot controllers (central computation unit) makes use of Ubuntu 16.04.2 an operating system, Thought for desktop uses, this operating system presents insecure defaults for robots. These insecurities include a way for users to escalate their access beyond what they were granted via file creation, access race conditions, insecure home directory configurations and defaults that facilitate Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.

The password for the safety PLC is the default and thus easy to find (in manuals, etc.). This allows a manipulated program to be uploaded to the safety PLC, effectively disabling the emergency stop in case an object is too close to the robot. Navigation and any other components dependent on the laser scanner are not affected (thus it is hard to detect before something happens) though the laser scanner configuration can also be affected altering further the safety of the device.

The access tokens for the REST API are directly derived from the publicly available default credentials for the web interface. Given a USERNAME and a PASSWORD, the token string is generated directly with base64(USERNAME:sha256(PASSWORD)). An unauthorized attacker inside the network can use the default credentials to compute the token and interact with the REST API to exfiltrate, infiltrate or delete data.

MiR100, MiR200 and other MiR robots use the Robot Operating System (ROS) default packages exposing the computational graph without any sort of authentication. This allows attackers with access to the internal wireless and wired networks to take control of the robot seamlessly. In combination with CVE-2020-10269 and CVE-2020-10271, this flaw allows malicious actors to command the robot at desire.

MiR100, MiR200 and other MiR robots use the Robot Operating System (ROS) default packages exposing the computational graph to all network interfaces, wireless and wired. This is the result of a bad set up and can be mitigated by appropriately configuring ROS and/or applying custom patches as appropriate. Currently, the ROS computational graph can be accessed fully from the wired exposed ports. In combination with other flaws such as CVE-2020-10269, the computation graph can also be fetched and interacted from wireless networks. This allows a malicious operator to take control of the ROS logic and correspondingly, the complete robot given that MiR's operations are centered around the framework (ROS).

Out of the wired and wireless interfaces within MiR100, MiR200 and other vehicles from the MiR fleet, it's possible to access the Control Dashboard on a hardcoded IP address. Credentials to such wireless interface default to well known and widely spread users (omitted) and passwords (omitted). This information is also available in past User Guides and manuals which the vendor distributed. This flaw allows cyber attackers to take control of the robot remotely and make use of the default user interfaces MiR has created, lowering the complexity of attacks and making them available to entry-level attackers. More elaborated attacks can also be established by clearing authentication and sending network requests directly. We have confirmed this flaw in MiR100 and MiR200 but according to the vendor, it might also apply to MiR250, MiR500 and MiR1000.

One of the wireless interfaces within MiR100, MiR200 and possibly (according to the vendor) other MiR fleet vehicles comes pre-configured in WiFi Master (Access Point) mode. Credentials to such wireless Access Point default to well known and widely spread SSID (MiR_RXXXX) and passwords (omitted). This information is also available in past User Guides and manuals which the vendor distributed. We have confirmed this flaw in MiR100 and MiR200 but it might also apply to MiR250, MiR500 and MiR1000.

In Apache Spark 2.4.5 and earlier, a standalone resource manager's master may be configured to require authentication (spark.authenticate) via a shared secret. When enabled, however, a specially-crafted RPC to the master can succeed in starting an application's resources on the Spark cluster, even without the shared key. This can be leveraged to execute shell commands on the host machine. This does not affect Spark clusters using other resource managers (YARN, Mesos, etc).

In OSIsoft PI Web API 2019 Patch 1 (1.12.0.6346) and all previous versions, the affected product is vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack, which may allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.

A stack-based buffer overflow on DrayTek Vigor2960, Vigor3900, and Vigor300B devices before 1.5.1.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the formuserphonenumber parameter in an authusersms action to mainfunction.cgi.