CVE Database

SAP S/4HANA (Manage Substitution/Validation Rules) does not sufficiently validate input processed by rule definition functionality that utilizes a domain-specific scripting language. An authenticated attacker with specific business privileges could submit specially crafted input, which is interpreted as executable ABAP code by the rule processing logic. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute ABAP arbitrary code into the system, resulting in full compromise of the affected system and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system.

IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information or execute arbitrary code on the system due to improper data sanitization by the HTTP Server Administration web application.

IBM Maximo AI Service 9.1.0, and 9.2.0 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation.

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in Royal Plugins SiteVault – Backup, Restore, Migration & Cloning sitevault-backup-restore-migration allows Remote Code Inclusion.This issue affects SiteVault – Backup, Restore, Migration & Cloning: from n/a through 1.5.19.

Floci 1.1.0 before 2.2.0 contains a code injection vulnerability in VtlTemplateEngine that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute commands via unrestricted Velocity mapping templates. Attackers can create a REST API with a MOCK integration whose template uses $util reflection to reach Runtime or ProcessBuilder, executing OS commands in the Floci JVM.

openapi-typescript-codegen through 0.31.0 contains a code injection vulnerability that allows attackers controlling an OpenAPI document to inject JavaScript by supplying unescaped values interpolated into single-quoted string literals. Attackers can embed a single quote in path keys, parameter names, servers[0].url, or info.version to execute arbitrary JavaScript when generated clients are imported or service methods called.

The Avada (Fusion) Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16.1. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying authorization before dispatching a WordPress action hook whose name is taken from an attacker-supplied form-field value (via the notification email_message [field] placeholder and the {action_hook,...} dynamic-data token; the 3.16.1 trust gate is_content_request_supplied() only inspects $_POST['args']/$_GET['args'], never the $_POST['formData'] the public form-submit endpoint parses). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to invoke arbitrary WordPress action hooks (multiple per request), causing state changes up to permanent, irreversible destruction of site content: a verified unauthenticated request permanently deleted trashed posts, pages, and comments via the core wp_scheduled_delete action. Other non-deny-listed hooks extend the impact to denial of service (e.g. wp_maybe_auto_update) and, where vulnerable third-party handlers are installed, further privileged writes. The same unauthenticated dynamic-data pipeline additionally exposes a blind arbitrary user/post-meta read; the read result is delivered only to the site owner and is not attacker-exfiltrable through the plugin's own email/response paths. Exploitation requires a published Avada form with AJAX submission and a notification whose email_message template includes an [all_fields] or explicit [field] placeholder - the default form configuration.

An issue in iStoreOS istoreos-24.10.7 and before allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the task_id in tasks-lib.lua.