Export limit exceeded: 414885 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (2078 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2013-4073 | 2 Redhat, Ruby-lang | 4 Enterprise Linux, Openshift, Openstack and 1 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| The OpenSSL::SSL.verify_certificate_identity function in lib/openssl/ssl.rb in Ruby 1.8 before 1.8.7-p374, 1.9 before 1.9.3-p448, and 2.0 before 2.0.0-p247 does not properly handle a '\0' character in a domain name in the Subject Alternative Name field of an X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof arbitrary SSL servers via a crafted certificate issued by a legitimate Certification Authority, a related issue to CVE-2009-2408. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0162 | 4 Cloudforms Cloudengine, Redhat, Rhel Sam and 1 more | 4 1, Openshift, 1.2 and 1 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| The diff_pp function in lib/gauntlet_rubyparser.rb in the ruby_parser gem 3.1.1 and earlier for Ruby allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink attack on a temporary file with a predictable name in /tmp. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0155 | 5 Cloudforms Cloudengine, Debian, Redhat and 2 more | 6 1, Debian Linux, Openshift and 3 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Ruby on Rails 3.0.x before 3.0.19, 3.1.x before 3.1.10, and 3.2.x before 3.2.11 does not properly consider differences in parameter handling between the Active Record component and the JSON implementation, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended database-query restrictions and perform NULL checks or trigger missing WHERE clauses via a crafted request, as demonstrated by certain "[nil]" values, a related issue to CVE-2012-2660 and CVE-2012-2694. | ||||
| CVE-2012-2126 | 3 Canonical, Redhat, Rubygems | 5 Ubuntu Linux, Enterprise Linux, Enterprise Mrg and 2 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| RubyGems before 1.8.23 does not verify an SSL certificate, which allows remote attackers to modify a gem during installation via a man-in-the-middle attack. | ||||
| CVE-2013-2186 | 2 Redhat, Ubuntu | 7 Jboss Enterprise Brms Platform, Jboss Enterprise Portal Platform, Jboss Enterprise Soa Platform and 4 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| The DiskFileItem class in Apache Commons FileUpload, as used in Red Hat JBoss BRMS 5.3.1; JBoss Portal 4.3 CP07, 5.2.2, and 6.0.0; and Red Hat JBoss Web Server 1.0.2 allows remote attackers to write to arbitrary files via a NULL byte in a file name in a serialized instance. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0156 | 5 Cloudforms Cloudengine, Debian, Redhat and 2 more | 6 1, Debian Linux, Openshift and 3 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| active_support/core_ext/hash/conversions.rb in Ruby on Rails before 2.3.15, 3.0.x before 3.0.19, 3.1.x before 3.1.10, and 3.2.x before 3.2.11 does not properly restrict casts of string values, which allows remote attackers to conduct object-injection attacks and execute arbitrary code, or cause a denial of service (memory and CPU consumption) involving nested XML entity references, by leveraging Action Pack support for (1) YAML type conversion or (2) Symbol type conversion. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0158 | 3 Cloudbees, Jenkins, Redhat | 3 Jenkins, Jenkins, Openshift | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Unspecified vulnerability in Jenkins before 1.498, Jenkins LTS before 1.480.2, and Jenkins Enterprise 1.447.x before 1.447.6.1 and 1.466.x before 1.466.12.1, when a slave is attached and anonymous read access is enabled, allows remote attackers to obtain the master cryptographic key via unknown vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0164 | 1 Redhat | 2 Openshift, Openshift Origin | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| The lockwrap function in port-proxy/bin/openshift-port-proxy-cfg in Red Hat OpenShift Origin before 1.1 allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symlink attack on a temporary file with a predictable name in /tmp. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0169 | 4 Openssl, Oracle, Polarssl and 1 more | 11 Openssl, Openjdk, Polarssl and 8 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| The TLS protocol 1.1 and 1.2 and the DTLS protocol 1.0 and 1.2, as used in OpenSSL, OpenJDK, PolarSSL, and other products, do not properly consider timing side-channel attacks on a MAC check requirement during the processing of malformed CBC padding, which allows remote attackers to conduct distinguishing attacks and plaintext-recovery attacks via statistical analysis of timing data for crafted packets, aka the "Lucky Thirteen" issue. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0253 | 2 Apache, Redhat | 3 Maven, Maven Wagon, Openshift | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| The default configuration of Apache Maven 3.0.4, when using Maven Wagon 2.1, disables SSL certificate checks, which allows remote attackers to spoof servers via a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. | ||||
| CVE-2013-0256 | 5 Canonical, Cloudforms Cloudengine, Redhat and 2 more | 6 Ubuntu Linux, 1, Openshift and 3 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| darkfish.js in RDoc 2.3.0 through 3.12 and 4.x before 4.0.0.preview2.1, as used in Ruby, does not properly generate documents, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via a crafted URL. | ||||
| CVE-2023-46234 | 3 Browserify, Debian, Redhat | 3 Browserify-sign, Debian Linux, Openshift Distributed Tracing | 2025-04-10 | 6.5 Medium |
| browserify-sign is a package to duplicate the functionality of node's crypto public key functions, much of this is based on Fedor Indutny's work on indutny/tls.js. An upper bound check issue in `dsaVerify` function allows an attacker to construct signatures that can be successfully verified by any public key, thus leading to a signature forgery attack. All places in this project that involve DSA verification of user-input signatures will be affected by this vulnerability. This issue has been patched in version 4.2.2. | ||||
| CVE-2022-43844 | 2 Ibm, Redhat | 2 Robotic Process Automation For Cloud Pak, Openshift | 2025-04-10 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Robotic Process Automation for Cloud Pak 20.12 through 21.0.3 is vulnerable to broken access control. A user is not correctly redirected to the platform log out screen when logging out of IBM RPA for Cloud Pak. IBM X-Force ID: 239081. | ||||
| CVE-2022-41740 | 3 Ibm, Microsoft, Redhat | 4 Robotic Process Automation, Robotic Process Automation For Cloud Pak, Windows and 1 more | 2025-04-10 | 4.6 Medium |
| IBM Robotic Process Automation 20.12 through 21.0.6 could allow an attacker with physical access to the system to obtain highly sensitive information from system memory. IBM X-Force ID: 238053. | ||||
| CVE-2022-43573 | 3 Ibm, Microsoft, Redhat | 5 Robotic Process Automation, Robotic Process Automation As A Service, Robotic Process Automation For Cloud Pak and 2 more | 2025-04-09 | 3.1 Low |
| IBM Robotic Process Automation 20.12 through 21.0.6 is vulnerable to exposure of the name and email for the creator/modifier of platform level objects. IBM X-Force ID: 238678. | ||||
| CVE-2023-0296 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift | 2025-04-04 | 5.3 Medium |
| The Birthday attack against 64-bit block ciphers flaw (CVE-2016-2183) was reported for the health checks port (9979) on etcd grpc-proxy component. Even though the CVE-2016-2183 has been fixed in the etcd components, to enable periodic health checks from kubelet, it was necessary to open up a new port (9979) on etcd grpc-proxy, hence this port might be considered as still vulnerable to the same type of vulnerability. The health checks on etcd grpc-proxy do not contain sensitive data (only metrics data), therefore the potential impact related to this vulnerability is minimal. The CVE-2023-0296 has been assigned to this issue to track the permanent fix in the etcd component. | ||||
| CVE-2022-41721 | 2 Golang, Redhat | 5 H2c, Acm, Migration Toolkit Applications and 2 more | 2025-04-04 | 7.5 High |
| A request smuggling attack is possible when using MaxBytesHandler. When using MaxBytesHandler, the body of an HTTP request is not fully consumed. When the server attempts to read HTTP2 frames from the connection, it will instead be reading the body of the HTTP request, which could be attacker-manipulated to represent arbitrary HTTP2 requests. | ||||
| CVE-2023-22863 | 3 Ibm, Microsoft, Redhat | 5 Robotic Process Automation, Robotic Process Automation As A Service, Robotic Process Automation For Cloud Pak and 2 more | 2025-04-03 | 5.9 Medium |
| IBM Robotic Process Automation 20.12.0 through 21.0.2 defaults to HTTP in some RPA commands when the prefix is not explicitly specified in the URL. This could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 244109. | ||||
| CVE-2023-22594 | 3 Ibm, Microsoft, Redhat | 5 Robotic Process Automation, Robotic Process Automation As A Service, Robotic Process Automation For Cloud Pak and 2 more | 2025-04-03 | 4.6 Medium |
| IBM Robotic Process Automation for Cloud Pak 20.12.0 through 21.0.4 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. IBM X-Force ID: 244075. | ||||
| CVE-2023-22592 | 2 Ibm, Redhat | 2 Robotic Process Automation For Cloud Pak, Openshift | 2025-04-03 | 4 Medium |
| IBM Robotic Process Automation for Cloud Pak 21.0.1 through 21.0.4 could allow a local user to perform unauthorized actions due to insufficient permission settings. IBM X-Force ID: 244073. | ||||