| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. Prior to 1.11.2, net.jpountz.lz4.LZ4BlockInputStream refill() validates that the compressedLen field in a legacy LZ4Block header is nonnegative but allocates a compressed-input buffer of that attacker-controlled size before reading payload data, allowing a header-only stream to request a near-2 GiB allocation and exhaust the JVM heap. Canonical writers emit raw blocks when compression is not smaller than the original block, but vulnerable readers accept non-canonical oversized compressed blocks. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.2. |
| yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. Prior to 1.11.2, LZ4DecompressorWithLength uses getDecompressedLength to trust the four-byte decompressed-length header before validating the compressed input, allowing a five-byte attacker-supplied input whose header declares a large output size to request up to approximately 2 GiB and exhaust the JVM heap. Convenience overloads backed by LZ4FastDecompressor or LZ4SafeDecompressor allocate the untrusted size, while overloads that write to a caller-provided destination buffer are not affected because the caller controls the destination size. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.2. |
| Twisted is an event-based framework for internet applications, supporting Python 3.6+. In 25.5.0 and earlier, wildcardToRegexp() in twisted/mail/imap4.py translates the IMAP asterisk and percent wildcards but passes all other characters from an authenticated client's LIST or LSUB pattern directly to re.compile(), allowing nested or otherwise expensive regular expression constructs to cause catastrophic backtracking when matched against mailbox names. Because Twisted uses a cooperative single-threaded reactor, the blocking match suspends all server input and output for the duration of the match. No fixed release is available as of this review. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in code. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of generation of code. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow an attacker with access to the server secret and Redis write access to submit a malicious serialized cache value. When the value was retrieved, deserialization could have executed attacker-controlled code with the privileges of the service process. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an expected dependency confusion. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper authorization. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption during ZIP file extraction. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to a path traversal vulnerability. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation. |
| Information leak in Passwords in Google Chrome on on Android prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker leveraging social engineering to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Buffer overflow in Fonts in Google Chrome prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to potentially execute arbitrary code outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection'), aka improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation. |
