| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. |
| A SQL injection vulnerability existed in Kiteworks Secure Data Forms, where a value derived from the authenticated user's stored account data was incorporated into a database query without proper sanitization. An authenticated user could potentially influence that value to inject SQL. Exploitation requires an authenticated session and applies only to deployments where a specific optional feature is in use. |
| An authenticated administrator of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could submit a crafted serialized object to a cluster management interface that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution in the context of the gateway service account. Exploitation requires an administrator account holding a specific queue-management privilege. |
| 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 Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary commands to be executed on the affected gateway. |
| 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. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Unsafe Reflection and does not sufficiently restrict the code that the mail-processing pipeline could load from an imported rule configuration. An authenticated administrator with mail-rule configuration privileges could cause the gateway to load and execute code beyond the approved set of mail-processing components, potentially in the context of the mail-gateway service account. |
| Kiteworks Secure Data Forms before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to make the server issue arbitrary outbound network requests and read back the responses. This could potentially be used to reach internal-only services or other network-restricted resources. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to a path traversal weakness in an administrative import function allowed an authenticated administrator to write files to arbitrary locations on the server. This could potentially be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the underlying system. |
| heap OOB write in convert_file_from_to() via a crafted Content-Type header allows attacker to OOB write when email is used as a template. |
| Incorrect Authorization in SiteIsolation in Google Chrome prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| An Access Control Bypass vulnerability exists in the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) validation engine of Brocade Fabric OS versions before 10.0.1. When processing certain management protocol operations, the RBAC engine incorrectly categorizes non-standard action opcodes during permission checks. This allows authenticated users with read-only management privileges to bypass access controls and execute restricted administrative operations. |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow an adjacent-network attacker to execute arbitrary code due to deserialization of untrusted data. |
| Mitigation bypass in the File Handling component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 157.0.1. |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information and perform unauthorized actions due to insufficiently protected credentials. |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.3 and 10.2.7, an unauthenticated user with network access to the Patroni Representational State Transfer (REST) Application Programming Interface (API) on a search head cluster member could execute attacker-controlled operating-system commands. The vulnerability is possible because this interface does not require authentication for critical configuration operations. For more information see Sidecar configuration settings (https://help.splunk.com/en/data-management/splunk-enterprise-admin-manual/10.2/splunk-sidecars/sidecar-configuration-settings) in the Splunk documentation.
Splunk Enterprise versions 10.0.x and 9.4.x are not affected. |
