| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Missing integrity verification in the Progress Software Fiddler Download and Setup Skill on Linux, macOS, and Windows which allows an attacker to compromise or influence a release component and execute attacker-controlled code when a user runs the skill. On macOS, the skill stages the package at a predictable path and installs it with administrator privileges, which may allow code execution with root privileges after user approval. A local process may also replace the staged macOS package while the skill waits for approval. |
| On Debian, Ubuntu, and derivative Linux distributions, an on-path attacker who can manipulate the HTTP traffic (including a malicious mirror or proxy) between an APT client and an archive server triggered by a package install can trick the client into installing an attacker-controlled unverified package and achieve remote code execution with root privileges.
The vulnerability is caused by the reuse of hard links and requires the client to follow redirects and retry the download of package files. It requires the client to have a non-zero Acquire::Retries configuration setting; the value 3 is the default starting with Debian 12 (bookworm) and Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (Jammy Jellyfish), so older releases are unaffected in a default configuration |
| Node Version Manager (nvm) is a POSIX-compliant shell function for managing multiple node.js versions. In versions 0.40.5 through 0.40.8, `nvm_download_artifact` downloads a release archive directly to its final path in `$NVM_DIR/.cache` and verifies its checksum afterwards; on a checksum mismatch it reports an error but leaves the rejected archive in place. A later `nvm install --offline` of the same version installs that cached file without a checksum, so an archive that was just rejected gets installed and its `node` and `npm` run. This gives code execution to a party who can alter the downloaded tarball (for example a poisoned CDN or cache object) but cannot also forge the `SHASUMS256.txt` beside it, if the victim runs `nvm install --offline` for that version after the visible "Checksums do not match" failure and before any online retry. Version 0.41.0 only puts an archive in the cache once its checksum has passed. |
| An attacker who controls the registry, a mirror, or the network path to it may be able to serve arbitrary image content in response to a pull by digest, so that a user runs an image other than the one they pinned. The fix compares the returned digest to the pinned digest and fails the pull on a mismatch. Tag pulls are exempt, because a tag is mutable by design. The fix also verifies the hash of manifests and blobs when they are fetched. This vulnerability is addressed in container version 1.6.0 and containerization version 0.52.1. |
| The PFI plugin framework deploys executable assemblies (DLLs) from a signed plugin package into the local plugin repository and loads them via reflection, but the deployment routine processes archive entries that were never covered by the signature verification. An unauthenticated local attacker can replace an unsigned DLL outside the signed prefix in the archive passes verification and overwrites the legitimate signed assembly at the same destination path. The plugin loader then instantiates the attacker-supplied code without any additional integrity check resulting in a full compromise of the affected systems. |
| Emerson Ovation
was found to have no authentication of firmware signing and relies on an insecure checksum for integrity. This could allow an attacker to push malicious firmware images, cause a denial-of-service condition, or achieve remote code execution. |
| In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input. |
| Apple Mac OS X does not properly verify the authenticity of updates, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse update, as demonstrated by evilgrade and DNS cache poisoning. |
| The PartyGaming PartyPoker client program 121/120 does not properly verify the authenticity of updates, which allows remote man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse update. |
| SumatraPDF is a multi-format reader for Windows. In 3.5.0 through 3.5.2, SumatraPDF's update mechanism disables TLS hostname verification (INTERNET_FLAG_IGNORE_CERT_CN_INVALID) and executes installers without signature checks. A network attacker with any valid TLS certificate (e.g., Let's Encrypt) can intercept the update check request, inject a malicious installer URL, and achieve arbitrary code execution. |
| Pingtel xpressa SIP-based voice-over-IP phone 1.2.5 through 1.2.7.4 downloads phone applications from a web site but can not verify the integrity of the applications, which could allow remote attackers to install Trojan horse applications via DNS spoofing. |
| Symantec LiveUpdate before 1.6 does not use cryptography to ensure the integrity of download files, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via DNS spoofing of the update.symantec.com site. |
| An issue in the Web Configuration module of Startcharge Artemis AC Charger 7-22 kW v1.0.4 allows authenticated network-adjacent attackers to upload crafted firmware, leading to arbitrary code execution. |
| Akeo Consulting Rufus prior to version 2.17.1187 does not adequately validate the integrity of updates downloaded over HTTP, allowing an attacker to easily convince a user to execute arbitrary code |
| FastGPT is an AI Agent building platform. In versions 4.14.8.3 and below, the fastgpt-preview-image.yml workflow is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution and secret exfiltration by any external contributor. It uses pull_request_target (which runs with access to repository secrets) but checks out code from the pull request author's fork, then builds and pushes Docker images using attacker-controlled Dockerfiles. This also enables a supply chain attack via the production container registry. A patch was not available at the time of publication. |
| <p>A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint where APIs aren't properly protected from unsafe data input. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the SharePoint application pool and the SharePoint server farm account.</p>
<p>Exploitation of this vulnerability requires that a user access a susceptible API on an affected version of SharePoint with specially-formatted input.</p>
<p>The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how SharePoint handles deserialization of untrusted data.</p> |
| <p>A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint when the software fails to check the source markup of an application package. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the SharePoint application pool and the SharePoint server farm account.</p>
<p>Exploitation of this vulnerability requires that a user uploads a specially crafted SharePoint application package to an affected version of SharePoint.</p>
<p>The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how SharePoint checks the source markup of application packages.</p> |
| <p>A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint when the software fails to check the source markup of an application package. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the SharePoint application pool and the SharePoint server farm account.</p>
<p>Exploitation of this vulnerability requires that a user uploads a specially crafted SharePoint application package to an affected version of SharePoint.</p>
<p>The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how SharePoint checks the source markup of application packages.</p> |
| <p>A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint when the software fails to check the source markup of an application package. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the SharePoint application pool and the SharePoint server farm account.</p>
<p>Exploitation of this vulnerability requires that a user uploads a specially crafted SharePoint application package to an affected version of SharePoint.</p>
<p>The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how SharePoint checks the source markup of application packages.</p> |
| <p>A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint when the software fails to check the source markup of an application package. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could run arbitrary code in the context of the SharePoint application pool and the SharePoint server farm account.</p>
<p>Exploitation of this vulnerability requires that a user uploads a specially crafted SharePoint application package to an affected version of SharePoint.</p>
<p>The security update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how SharePoint checks the source markup of application packages.</p> |
