Base de CVEs

An low privileged remote attacker with an account for the Web-based management can change the system configuration to perform a command injection as root, resulting in a total loss of confidentiality, availability and integrity due to improper control of generation of code ('Code Injection').

Happy DOM is a JavaScript implementation of a web browser without its graphical user interface. Happy DOM v19 and lower contains a security vulnerability that puts the owner system at the risk of RCE (Remote Code Execution) attacks. A Node.js VM Context is not an isolated environment, and if the user runs untrusted JavaScript code within the Happy DOM VM Context, it may escape the VM and get access to process level functionality. It seems like what the attacker can get control over depends on if the process is using ESM or CommonJS. With CommonJS the attacker can get hold of the `require()` function to import modules. Happy DOM has JavaScript evaluation enabled by default. This may not be obvious to the consumer of Happy DOM and can potentially put the user at risk if untrusted code is executed within the environment. Version 20.0.0 patches the issue by changing JavaScript evaluation to be disabled by default.

Eidos is an extensible framework for Personal Data Management. Versions 0.21.0 and below contain a one-click remote code execution vulnerability. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by embedding a specially crafted eidos: URL on any website, including a malicious one they control. When a victim visits such a site or clicks on the link, the browser triggers the app’s custom URL handler (eidos:), causing the Eidos application to launch and process the URL, leading to remote code execution on the victim’s machine. This issue does not have a fix as of October 3, 2025

Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. Versions 8.2.1 and below allow an authenticated user to use a specially crafted Lua script to manipulate different LUA objects and potentially run their own code in the context of another user. The problem exists in all versions of Redis with LUA scripting. This issue is fixed in version 8.2.2. A workaround to mitigate the problem without patching the redis-server executable is to prevent users from executing LUA scripts. This can be done using ACL to block a script by restricting both the EVAL and FUNCTION command families.

Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. In versions 1.7 and below, a vulnerability in the way Cursor CLI Agent protects its sensitive files (i.e. */.cursor/cli.json) allows attackers to modify the content of the files through prompt injection, thus achieving remote code execution. A prompt injection can lead to full RCE through modifying sensitive files on case-insensitive filesystems. This issue is fixed in a commit, 25b418f, but has yet to be released as of October 3, 2025.

Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Versions 1.6 and below are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) attacks through Visual Studio Code Workspaces. Workspaces allow users to open more than a single folder and save specific settings (pretty similar to .vscode/settings.json) for the folders / project. An untitled workspace is automatically created by VS Code (untitled.code-workspace), which contains all the folders and workspace settings from the user's current session, opening up an entire new attack vector if the user has a .code-workspace file in path (either untitled created automatically or a saved one). If an attacker is able to hijack the chat context of the victim (such as via a compromised MCP server), they can use prompt injection to make the Cursor Agent write into this file and modify the workspace. This leads to a bypass of CVE-2025-54130 which can lead to RCE by writing to the settings section. This issue is fixed in version 1.7.

Claude Code is an agentic coding tool. Versions before 1.0.111 were vulnerable to Code Injection due to a bug in the startup trust dialog implementation. Claude Code could be tricked to execute code contained in a project before the user accepted the startup trust dialog. Exploiting this requires a user to start Claude Code in an untrusted directory. Users on standard Claude Code auto-update will have received this fix automatically. Users performing manual updates are advised to update to the latest version. This issue is fixed in version 1.0.111.

A security flaw has been discovered in MuYuCMS up to 2.7. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /admin.php of the component Template Management. The manipulation results in code injection. It is possible to launch the attack remotely.

An authenticated remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in multiple WSO2 products due to improper input validation in the event processor admin service. A user with administrative access to the SOAP admin services can exploit this flaw by deploying a Siddhi execution plan containing malicious Java code, resulting in arbitrary code execution on the server. Exploitation of this vulnerability requires a valid user account with administrative privileges, limiting the attack surface to authenticated but potentially malicious users.

PyInstaller bundles a Python application and all its dependencies into a single package. Due to a special entry being appended to `sys.path` during the bootstrap process of a PyInstaller-frozen application, and due to the bootstrap script attempting to load an optional module for bytecode decryption while this entry is still present in `sys.path`, an application built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0 may be tricked by an unprivileged attacker into executing arbitrary python code when **all** of the following conditions are met. First, the application is built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0; both onedir and onefile mode are affected. Second, the optional bytecode encryption code feature was not enabled during the application build. Third, the attacker can create files/directories in the same directory where the executable is located. Fourth, the filesystem supports creation of files/directories that contain `?` in their name (i.e., non-Windows systems). Fifth, the attacker is able to determine the offset at which the PYZ archive is embedded in the executable. The attacker can create a directory (or a zip archive) next to the executable, with the name that matches the format used by PyInstaller's bootloader to transmit information about the location of PYZ archive to the bootstrap script. If this directory (or zip archive) contains a python module whose name matches the name used by the optional bytecode encryption feature, this module will be loaded and executed by the bootstrap script (in the absence of the real, built-in module that is available when the bytecode-encryption feature is enabled). This results in arbitrary code execution that requires no modification of the executable itself. If the executable is running with elevated privileges (for example, due to having the `setuid` bit set), the code in the injected module is also executed with the said elevated privileges, resulting in a local privilege escalation. PyInstaller 6.0.0 (f5adf291c8b832d5aff7632844f7e3ddf7ad4923) removed support for bytecode encryption; this effectively removes the described attack vector, due to the bootstrap script not attempting to load the optional module for bytecode-decryption anymore. PyInstaller 6.10.0 (cfd60b510f95f92cb81fc42735c399bb781a4739) reworked the bootstrap process to avoid (ab)using `sys.path` for transmitting location of the PYZ archive, which further eliminates the possibility of described injection procedure. If upgrading PyInstaller is not feasible, this issue can be worked around by ensuring proper permissions on directories containing security-sensitive executables (i.e., executables with `setuid` bit set) should mitigate the issue.