Base de CVEs

Prior to v74.0.0.878.1682 of Meta Horizon OS, MediaSyncJobReceiver could be induced to send a privileged PendingIntent including a com.oculus.vrshell CallerIdentity to an arbitrary application listening via NotificationListenerService. That would allow the application to impersonate the com.oculus.vrshell package, as well as packages signed with the same key, towards any endpoint within the OS that uses CallerIdentity authentication.

Devika v1.0 is vulnerable to Code Injection via the Runner.run_code function in src/agents/runner/runner.py.

Devika v1.0 is vulnerable to Code Injection in the Runner.execute function in src/agents/runner/runner.py which allows an attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution by exploiting the direct execution of LLM-generated content.

DeepTutor v1.4.0 is vulnerable to command execution in /tutorbot/agent/tools/shell.py:ExecTool.execute.

agentgpt v.1.0.0 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control in next/src/server/api/routers/agentRouter.ts. An externally reachable path accepts a caller-selected object or tenant identifier and reaches a data-access operation without a visible owner, tenant, workspace, or membership binding on that object.

In DB-GPT 0.7.5 and 0.8.0, a skill uploaded through the real /api/v1/skills/upload route can later be executed through the real /api/v1/chat/react-agent flow.

DB-GPT v0.7.5 and v0.8.0 contains directory traversal in python_file_upload (packages/dbgpt-app/src/dbgpt_app/openapi/api_v1/python_upload_api.py:42). A remote attacker can use the validated exploitation path to write files outside the intended workspace or storage boundary.

bisheng 2.3.0, 2.4.0, and 2.4.0-beta1 is vulnerable to Code Injection in src/backend/bisheng/api/v1/validate.py.

DB-GPT v0.8.0 sandbox API silently falls back to LocalRuntime and executes code on host.

DB-GPT 0.8.0 contains directory traversal in skill_upload (packages/dbgpt-app/src/dbgpt_app/openapi/api_v1/agentic_data_api.py:40). A remote attacker can use the validated exploitation path to write files outside the intended workspace or storage boundary.

bisheng 2.3.0, 2.4.0, and 2.4.0-beta1 is vulnerable to directory traversal in save_download_file (src/backend/bisheng/core/cache/utils.py:290).

In camel-ai camel 0.2.91a1, v0.2.91a2 and v0.2.91a3, TerminalToolkit.shell_exec allows prompt-driven shell command execution without an approval boundary.

In camel-ai camel 0.2.91a1, v0.2.91a2 and v0.2.91a3, CodeExecutionToolkit can run model-produced Python code through SubprocessInterpreter without an approval boundary.

In agentscope 1.0.18, 1.0.19, and 1.0.19 when the RealtimeAgent session exposes execute_python_code as an available tool, a remote WebSocket user can prompt the agent to call that tool and run Python code in the service environment. In the validated path, RealtimeAgent._acting forwards the model-produced tool call to Toolkit.call_tool_function, which invokes execute_python_code without an additional approval or isolation boundary on that path.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently restrict which account a certificate could be assigned to. This could allow an attacker to associate a certificate with another user's account, affecting the confidentiality and integrity of that account's encrypted mail and, where certificate-based login is enabled, potentially permitting unauthorized access to the account.

A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) weakness in Kiteworks Core could allow an unauthenticated attacker to store crafted content that later executes arbitrary JavaScript in the authenticated session of an administrator who views the affected page. This could have permitted the attacker to gain full administrative control, including the creation of a new administrative account.

Kiteworks Core did not correctly validate a parameter submitted to the password reset workflow. An unauthenticated attacker who knew the email address of a user with a locally stored password could potentially reset that account's password without access to the emailed reset link and then authenticate as that user, including where the account holds administrative privileges.

Improper authentication in a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrative service. An administrative service in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not consistently enforce administrator authentication, so the required password check could be bypassed. An attacker who referenced a valid administrator account could potentially create, modify, or delete internal users and managed domains and change their security-feature configuration without authenticating; deleting a managed domain also removes its user accounts and could lock administrators out of the gateway.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state.

iperf3 3.21 (esnet/iperf) contains a remote, unauthenticated heap use-after-free: the server's per-test watchdog server_timer_proc() frees streams without cancelling/joining their worker threads, so a blocked worker dereferences a freed iperf_stream; fixed in 3.22.

In ldapd in OpenBSD 7.8 before errata 057 and 7.9 before errata 021, delegated BSD authentication results are correlated only by the LDAP child process client file descriptor and LDAP message ID. After a connection closes, a later connection that reuses the same file descriptor and message ID can receive the earlier authentication result. A remote attacker who can reach ldapd can complete a Bind as another identity. A missing connection can also cause a NULL pointer dereference. (ldapd is not enabled by default.)