| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/express/association/reorder. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/event/duplicate. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/design. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/cache. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/delete. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/logs/bulk/delete. The The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/logs/delete. The The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file removeFavoriteFolder($id). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file star(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescan(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file addFavoriteFolder($id). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file approveVersion(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescanMultiple(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting. |
| Generation of Incorrect Security Tokens vulnerability in CBOT Chatbot allows Token Impersonation, Privilege Abuse.
This issue affects Chatbot: before Core: v4.0.3.4 Panel: v4.0.3.7. |
| Improper input validation in the AMD OverDrive (AOD) System Management Mode (SMM) module could allow a privileged attacker to perform an out-of-bounds read, potentially resulting in loss of confidentiality. |
| Calling the ungetwc function on a FILE stream with wide characters encoded in a character set that has overlaps between its single byte and multi-byte character encodings, in the GNU C Library version 2.43 or earlier, may result in an attempt to read bytes before an allocated buffer, potentially resulting in unintentional disclosure of neighboring data in the heap, or a program crash.
A bug in the wide character pushback implementation (_IO_wdefault_pbackfail in libio/wgenops.c) causes ungetwc() to operate on the regular character buffer (fp->_IO_read_ptr) instead of the actual wide-stream read pointer (fp->_wide_data->_IO_read_ptr). The program crash may happen in cases where fp->_IO_read_ptr is not initialized and hence points to NULL. The buffer under-read requires a special situation where the input character encoding is such that there are overlaps between single byte representations and multibyte representations in that encoding, resulting in spurious matches. The spurious match case is not possible in the standard Unicode character sets. |
| HCL AION is affected by a Cookie with Insecure, Improper, or Missing SameSite vulnerability. This can allow cookies to be sent in cross-site requests, potentially increasing exposure to cross-site request forgery and related security risks. This issue affects AION: 2.0. |
| The Secure and SameSite attribute are missing in the GraphicalData web services and WebClient web app of PcVue in version 12.0.0 through 16.3.3 included. |
| Post-Quantum Secure Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing provides a Python implementation of Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing (VSS) scheme. In versions 0.8.0b2 and prior, the `secure_redundant_execution` function in feldman_vss.py attempts to mitigate fault injection attacks by executing a function multiple times and comparing results. However, several critical weaknesses exist. Python's execution environment cannot guarantee true isolation between redundant executions, the constant-time comparison implementation in Python is subject to timing variations, the randomized execution order and timing provide insufficient protection against sophisticated fault attacks, and the error handling may leak timing information about partial execution results. These limitations make the protection ineffective against targeted fault injection attacks, especially from attackers with physical access to the hardware. A successful fault injection attack could allow an attacker to bypass the redundancy check mechanisms, extract secret polynomial coefficients during share generation or verification, force the acceptance of invalid shares during verification, and/or manipulate the commitment verification process to accept fraudulent commitments. This undermines the core security guarantees of the Verifiable Secret Sharing scheme. As of time of publication, no patched versions of Post-Quantum Secure Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing exist, but other mitigations are available. Long-term remediation requires reimplementing the security-critical functions in a lower-level language like Rust. Short-term mitigations include deploying the software in environments with physical security controls, increasing the redundancy count (from 5 to a higher number) by modifying the source code, adding external verification of cryptographic operations when possible, considering using hardware security modules (HSMs) for key operations. |
| Improper input validation in the SMM handler may allow a privileged attacker to overwrite SMRAM, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution. |
