| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The SSL 3 HMAC functionality in wolfSSL CyaSSL 2.5.0 before 2.9.4 does not check the padding length when verification fails, which allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a crafted HMAC, which triggers an out-of-bounds read. |
| The DoAlert function in the (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in wolfSSL CyaSSL before 2.9.4 allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact and vectors, which trigger memory corruption or an out-of-bounds read. |
| Deadwood before 2.3.09, 3.x before 3.2.05, and as used in MaraDNS before 1.4.14 and 2.x before 2.0.09, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and crash) by leveraging permission to perform recursive queries against Deadwood, related to missing input validation. |
| Deadwood before 2.3.09, 3.x before 3.2.05, and as used in MaraDNS before 1.4.14 and 2.x before 2.0.09, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and crash) by leveraging permission to perform recursive queries against Deadwood, related to a logic error. |
| Rockwell Automation RSLinx Enterprise Software (LogReceiver.exe) CPR9, CPR9-SR1, CPR9-SR2, CPR9-SR3, CPR9-SR4, CPR9-SR5, CPR9-SR5.1, and CPR9-SR6 does not handle input correctly and results in a logic error if it calculates an incorrect value for the “Total Record Size” field. By sending a datagram to the service over Port 4444/UDP with the “Record Data Size” field modified to a specifically oversized value, the service will calculate an undersized value for the “Total Record Size” that will cause an out-of-bounds read access violation that leads to a service crash. The service can be recovered with a manual reboot. The patches and details pertaining to these vulnerabilities can be found at the following Rockwell Automation Security Advisory link (login is required): https://rockwellautomation.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/537599 |
| Rockwell Automation RSLinx Enterprise Software (LogReceiver.exe) CPR9, CPR9-SR1, CPR9-SR2, CPR9-SR3, CPR9-SR4, CPR9-SR5, CPR9-SR5.1, and CPR9-SR6 does not handle input correctly and results in a logic error if it receives a datagram with an incorrect value in the “Record Data Size” field. By sending a datagram to the service over Port 4444/UDP with the “Record Data Size” field modified to an oversized value, an attacker could cause an out-of-bounds read access violation that leads to a service crash. The service can be recovered with a manual reboot. The patches and details pertaining to this vulnerability can be found at the following Rockwell Automation Security Advisory link (login is required): https://rockwellautomation.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/537599 |
| openslp: SLPIntersectStringList()' Function has a DoS vulnerability |
| In the Linux kernel before 2.6.37, an out of bounds array access happened in drivers/net/mlx4/port.c. When searching for a free entry in either mlx4_register_vlan() or mlx4_register_mac(), and there is no free entry, the loop terminates without updating the local variable free thus causing out of array bounds access. |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it only affected a development version. Notes: none |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-17724. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2017-17724. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-17724 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-17724. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2017-17724. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-17724 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2018-7576, CVE-2018-21233. Reason: this candidate was intended for one issue, but the description and references inadvertently combined multiple issues. Notes: All CVE users should consult CVE-2018-7576 and CVE-2018-21233 to determine which ID is appropriate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2018-16276. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2018-16276. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2018-16276 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2015-9101. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2015-9101. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2015-9101 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-11543. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-11543. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-11543 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2016-3182. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2016-3182. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2016-3182 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none |
