CVE Feed

Windows TCP/IP Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Microsoft OfficePlus Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Windows Mark of the Web Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability

Azure Stack Hub Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Windows Line Printer Daemon (LPD) Service Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Microsoft Teams for iOS Spoofing Vulnerability

Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Windows Ancillary Function Driver for WinSock Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Kernel Streaming Service Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability

Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Windows Mobile Broadband Driver Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Windows Network Virtualization Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Windows Network Virtualization Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Windows Bluetooth Driver Information Disclosure Vulnerability

Azure Stack Hub Spoofing Vulnerability

Improper input validation in AMD μProf could allow an attacker to perform a write to an invalid address, potentially resulting in denial of service.

Incorrect default permissions in the AMD μProf installation directory could allow an attacker to achieve privilege escalation, potentially resulting in arbitrary code execution.

A DLL hijacking vulnerability in AMD μProf could allow an attacker to achieve privilege escalation, potentially resulting in arbitrary code execution.

Insufficient validation of the Input Output Control (IOCTL) input buffer in AMD μProf may allow an authenticated attacker to cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially causing a Windows® OS crash, resulting in denial of service.

Improper input validation in ARM® Trusted Firmware used in AMD’s Zynq™ UltraScale+™) MPSoC/RFSoC may allow a privileged attacker to perform out of bound reads, potentially resulting in data leakage and denial of service.

Improper key usage control in AMD Secure Processor (ASP) may allow an attacker with local access who has gained arbitrary code execution privilege in ASP to extract ASP cryptographic keys, potentially resulting in loss of confidentiality and integrity.

Improper input validation in Power Management Firmware (PMFW) may allow an attacker with privileges to send a malformed input for the "set temperature input selection" command, potentially resulting in a loss of integrity and/or availability.

Improper validation of array index in Power Management Firmware (PMFW) may allow a privileged attacker to cause an out-of-bounds memory read within PMFW, potentially leading to a denial of service.

Improper input validation in SMU may allow an attacker with privileges and a compromised physical function (PF)     to modify the PCIe® lane count and speed, potentially leading to a loss of availability.

Generation of weak and predictable Initialization Vector (IV) in PMFW (Power Management Firmware) may allow an attacker with privileges to reuse IV values to reverse-engineer debug data, potentially resulting in information disclosure.

Improper re-initialization of IOMMU during the DRTM event may permit an untrusted platform configuration to persist, allowing an attacker to read or modify hypervisor memory, potentially resulting in loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

A TOCTOU (Time-Of-Check-Time-Of-Use) in SMM may allow an attacker with ring0 privileges and access to the BIOS menu or UEFI shell to modify the communications buffer potentially resulting in arbitrary code execution.

Incomplete cleanup in the ASP may expose the Master Encryption Key (MEK) to a privileged attacker with access to the BIOS menu or UEFI shell and a memory exfiltration vulnerability, potentially resulting in loss of confidentiality.

An insufficient bounds check in PMFW (Power Management Firmware) may allow an attacker to utilize a malicious VF (virtualization function) to send a malformed message, potentially resulting in a denial of service.

A hardcoded AES key in PMFW may result in a privileged attacker gaining access to the key, potentially resulting in internal debug information leakage.

An insufficient DRAM address validation in PMFW may allow a privileged attacker to read from an invalid DRAM address to SRAM, potentially resulting in data corruption or denial of service.

An insufficient DRAM address validation in PMFW may allow a privileged attacker to perform a DMA read from an invalid DRAM address to SRAM, potentially resulting in loss of data integrity.

Insufficient checking of memory buffer in AMD Secure Processor (ASP) Secure OS may allow an attacker with a malicious trusted application to read/write to the ASP Secure OS kernel virtual address space, potentially resulting in privilege escalation.

Improper bounds checking in APCB firmware may allow an attacker to perform an out of bounds write, corrupting the APCB entry, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution.

Insufficient input validation in the ABL may allow a privileged attacker with access to the BIOS menu or UEFI shell to tamper with the structure headers in SPI ROM causing an out of bounds memory read and write, potentially resulting in memory corruption or denial of service.

Lack of stack protection exploit mechanisms in ASP Secure OS Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) may allow a privileged attacker with access to AMD signing keys to c006Frrupt the return address, causing a stack-based buffer overrun, potentially leading to a denial of service.

Insufficient access controls in ASP kernel may allow a privileged attacker with access to AMD signing keys and the BIOS menu or UEFI shell to map DRAM regions in protected areas, potentially leading to a loss of platform integrity.

A malicious attacker in x86 can misconfigure the Trusted Memory Regions (TMRs), which may allow the attacker to set an arbitrary address range for the TMR, potentially leading to a loss of integrity and availability.

An out of bounds memory write when processing the AMD PSP1 Configuration Block (APCB) could allow an attacker with access the ability to modify the BIOS image, and the ability to sign the resulting image, to potentially modify the APCB block resulting in arbitrary code execution.

In Ocean Data Systems Dream Report, an incorrect permission vulnerability could allow a local unprivileged attacker to escalate their privileges and could cause a denial-of-service.

In Ocean Data Systems Dream Report, a path traversal vulnerability could allow an attacker to perform remote code execution through the injection of a malicious dynamic-link library (DLL).

If exploited, this vulnerability could cause a SuiteLink server to consume excessive system resources and slow down processing of Data I/O for the duration of the attack.

A unverified password change in Fortinet FortiManager versions 7.0.0 through 7.0.10, versions 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, and versions 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, as well as Fortinet FortiAnalyzer versions 7.0.0 through 7.0.10, versions 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, and versions 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, allows an attacker to modify admin passwords via the device configuration backup.

A improper neutralization of special elements used in an os command ('os command injection') in Fortinet FortiDDoS version 5.5.0 through 5.5.1, 5.4.2 through 5.4.0, 5.3.0 through 5.3.1, 5.2.0, 5.1.0, 5.0.0, 4.7.0, 4.6.0 and 4.5.0 and FortiDDoS-F version 6.3.0 through 6.3.1, 6.2.0 through 6.2.2, 6.1.0 through 6.1.4 allows an authenticated attacker to execute shell code as `root` via `execute` CLI commands.

An insufficient session expiration vulnerability [CWE-613] vulnerability in FortiOS 7.2.5 and below, 7.0 all versions, 6.4 all versions; FortiProxy 7.2 all versions, 7.0 all versions; FortiPAM 1.3 all versions, 1.2 all versions, 1.1 all versions, 1.0 all versions; FortiSwitchManager 7.2.1 and below, 7.0 all versions GUI may allow attackers to re-use websessions after GUI logout, should they manage to acquire the required credentials.

An improper access control vulnerability [CWE-284] in FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.3, 7.2.5 through 7.2.7, 7.0.12 through 7.0.14 and 6.4.x may allow an attacker who has already successfully obtained write access to the underlying system (via another hypothetical exploit) to bypass the file integrity checking system.

An improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Fortinet FortiSOAR 7.3.0 through 7.3.2 allows an authenticated, remote attacker to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the Communications module.