CVE Database

ImageMagick 6.8.9.9 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).

Logic error in ImageMagick 6.8.9.9 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption).

The png coder in ImageMagick allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash).

Memory leak in ImageMagick allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption).

Memory leak in the ReadPSDLayers function in coders/psd.c in ImageMagick 6.8.9.9 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via unspecified vectors.

Libavcodec in FFmpeg before 0.11 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted WMV file.

The sg_ioctl function in drivers/scsi/sg.c in the Linux kernel through 4.10.4 allows local users to cause a denial of service (stack-based buffer overflow) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a large command size in an SG_NEXT_CMD_LEN ioctl call, leading to out-of-bounds write access in the sg_write function.

libpcre1 in PCRE 8.40 and libpcre2 in PCRE2 10.23 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (segmentation violation for read access, and application crash) by triggering an invalid Unicode property lookup.

contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh in Git before 1.9.3 does not sanitize branch names in the PS1 variable, allowing a malicious repository to cause code execution.

The xfrm_replay_verify_len function in net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c in the Linux kernel through 4.10.6 does not validate certain size data after an XFRM_MSG_NEWAE update, which allows local users to obtain root privileges or cause a denial of service (heap-based out-of-bounds access) by leveraging the CAP_NET_ADMIN capability, as demonstrated during a Pwn2Own competition at CanSecWest 2017 for the Ubuntu 16.10 linux-image-* package 4.8.0.41.52.

CSRF was discovered in the web UI in Deluge before 1.3.14. The exploitation methodology involves (1) hosting a crafted plugin that executes an arbitrary program from its __init__.py file and (2) causing the victim to download, install, and enable this plugin.

Suricata before 3.2.1 has an IPv4 defragmentation evasion issue caused by lack of a check for the IP protocol during fragment matching.

Unrestricted file upload vulnerability in the (1) myAccount, (2) projects, (3) tasks, (4) tickets, (5) discussions, (6) reports, and (7) scheduler pages in qdPM 8.3 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by uploading a file with an executable extension, then accessing it via a direct request to the file in uploads/attachments/ or uploads/users/.

Information disclosure issue in qdPM 8.3 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a direct request to (1) core/config/databases.yml, (2) core/log/qdPM_prod.log, or (3) core/apps/qdPM/config/settings.yml.

coders/tiff.c in ImageMagick allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via vectors related to the "identification of image."

GetSimple CMS 3.3.4 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a direct request to (1) data/users/<username>.xml, (2) backups/users/<username>.xml.bak, (3) data/other/authorization.xml, or (4) data/other/appid.xml.

Wonder CMS 2014 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by viewing /files/password, which reveals the unsalted MD5 hashed password.

xrdp 0.9.1 calls the PAM function auth_start_session() in an incorrect location, leading to PAM session modules not being properly initialized, with a potential consequence of incorrect configurations or elevation of privileges, aka a pam_limits.so bypass.

An issue was discovered in apng2gif 1.7. There is an integer overflow resulting in a heap-based buffer overflow. This is related to the read_chunk function making an unchecked addition of 12.

An issue was discovered in apng2gif 1.7. There is an integer overflow resulting in a heap-based buffer over-read, related to the load_apng function and the imagesize variable.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, and CVE-2017-0150.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, and CVE-2017-0151.

Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 through 11 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted web site, aka "Internet Explorer Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0018 and CVE-2017-0037.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, and CVE-2017-0146.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory via a crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability."

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, and CVE-2017-0148.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0145, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

The scripting engine in Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 through 11 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted web site, aka "Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from that described in CVE-2017-0040.

Microsoft Lync for Mac 2011 fails to properly validate certificates, allowing remote attackers to alter server-client communications, aka "Microsoft Lync for Mac Certificate Validation Vulnerability."

Hyper-V in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows guest OS users to execute arbitrary code on the host OS via a crafted application, aka "Hyper-V Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from that described in CVE-2017-0075.

The Windows Graphics Component in Microsoft Office 2007 SP3; 2010 SP2; and Word Viewer; Skype for Business 2016; Lync 2013 SP1; Lync 2010; Live Meeting 2007; Silverlight 5; Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; and Windows 7 SP1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted web site, aka "Graphics Component Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from that described in CVE-2017-0014.

The iSNS Server service in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to issue malicious requests via an integer overflow, aka "iSNS Server Memory Corruption Vulnerability."

The kernel API in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, and Windows Server 2012 mishandles registry objects in memory, which allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka "Windows Registry Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1; Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 let attackers with access to targets systems gain privileges when Windows fails to properly validate buffer lengths, aka "Windows Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

The kernel-mode drivers in Transaction Manager in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1; Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allow local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka "Windows Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

A DCOM object in Helppane.exe in Microsoft Windows 7 SP1; Windows Server 2008 R2; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows local users to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka "Windows HelpPane Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

Hyper-V in Microsoft Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607 and Windows Server 2016 does not properly validate vSMB packet data, which allows attackers to execute arbitrary code on a target OS, aka "Hyper-V vSMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from that described in CVE-2017-0021.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

Uniscribe in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, and Windows 7 SP1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted web site, aka "Uniscribe Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0072, CVE-2017-0083, CVE-2017-0084, CVE-2017-0086, CVE-2017-0087, CVE-2017-0088, and CVE-2017-0089.

Uniscribe in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2, Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, and Windows 7 SP1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted web site, aka "Uniscribe Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0072, CVE-2017-0083, CVE-2017-0084, CVE-2017-0086, CVE-2017-0087, CVE-2017-0088, and CVE-2017-0090.