CVE Feed

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.

Kiteworks Core contains a business logic flaw in a Kiteworks file-request feature allowed an authenticated user to send a request that appeared to originate from another user, because the server did not verify that the requester was authorized to act as the specified account. This could be used to solicit files or information from a recipient under a trusted identity; exploitation requires the feature to be enabled for the attacker's profile and the targeted recipient to act on the request.

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 Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Deserialization of Untrusted Data. A deserialization weakness in Kiteworks Core could, under certain conditions, allow crafted data to be deserialized unsafely, potentially resulting in remote code execution on the appliance. Exploitation depends on an attacker first being able to influence the affected data, so this issue is not exploitable on its own.

Kiteworks Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting. A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) weakness in Kiteworks Core could allow an authenticated user to submit content that, when later viewed by another user, executes arbitrary JavaScript in that user's authenticated session. This could be used to perform actions on the victim's behalf and may have permitted account takeover, including of higher-privileged users. Exploitation requires the victim to view the attacker-supplied content.

Kiteworks Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Write. An improper restriction of a user-supplied file path in a Kiteworks administrative export feature could allow an authenticated administrator to write a file to an arbitrary location on the underlying host, potentially leading to command execution on the appliance. Exploitation requires an existing, authenticated administrative account with access to the affected export function.

Kiteworks Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection. A stored SQL injection vulnerability in a Kiteworks administrative reporting feature could allow an authenticated administrator to read sensitive data from the underlying database and to affect the availability of the service. Exploitation requires an existing, authenticated administrative account with access to the affected reporting function.

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 Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to OS Command Injection that allows an authenticated administrator to upload a configuration package whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted package could cause the underlying system to execute arbitrary operating-system commands, potentially with elevated privileges, on the affected appliance.

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 Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Improper Privilege Management and does not correctly enforce restrictions on role assignment, which could allow an authenticated administrative user with limited, non-Sysadmin role-management permissions to elevate another user to full system-administrator privileges beyond those the administrative user was authorized to grant.

Kiteworks Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Stored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) that could allow an authenticated user to store crafted content that executes arbitrary JavaScript in another user's authenticated session when they preview shared content. This could potentially lead to session compromise and account takeover.

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 Core before version 9.5.1 is vulnerable to Content Injection. A URL parameter in the PDF viewer was insufficiently validated, allowing an attacker-controlled document to be loaded and displayed under the trust of the legitimate application domain. This could increase the credibility of phishing attempts relying on malicious links embedded in the displayed content.

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.

iperf3 3.21 (esnet/iperf) contains a remote, unauthenticated heap use-after-free: the server's per-test watchdog server_timer_proc() frees streams without cancelling/joining their worker threads, so a blocked worker dereferences a freed iperf_stream; fixed in 3.22.

Inspur Haiyue HCM Cloud contains an arbitrary file read vulnerability in the /api/model_report/file/download endpoint that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to read arbitrary files by supplying unvalidated path parameters index and ext. Attackers can craft requests such as /api/model_report/file/download?index=/&ext=<path> to traverse the filesystem and disclose sensitive files including /etc/passwd, application database files, and system configuration files. Exploitation evidence was first observed by the Shadowserver Foundation on 2024-11-04 .

Yonyou U8 CRM before V16.5 and V18 contains an arbitrary file read vulnerability in /ajax/getemaildata.php that allows unauthenticated attackers to bypass authentication using the DontCheckLogin=1 parameter and read arbitrary files via an unvalidated filePath parameter. Attackers can exploit this flaw to read sensitive files outside the web application directory, including configuration files containing database or service credentials. Exploitation evidence was first observed by the Shadowserver Foundation on 2023-10-14.

iDocView contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in its /doc/upload endpoint that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to fetch arbitrary URLs by supplying a hardcoded default token value (testtoken) to bypass authentication. Attackers can exploit the unrestricted URL scheme handling, including file:// URIs, to read arbitrary local files such as operating-system and application configuration files, and to reach internal network hosts and services not otherwise accessible. Exploitation evidence was first observed by the Shadowserver Foundation on 2024-03-26.

Improperly stored passwords in the config file in Itron MV-90 xi 3.0 allows attackers to decode the passwords and password histories to gain access to the MV-90 application as any user.

In ldapd in OpenBSD 7.8 before errata 057 and 7.9 before errata 021, delegated BSD authentication results are correlated only by the LDAP child process client file descriptor and LDAP message ID. After a connection closes, a later connection that reuses the same file descriptor and message ID can receive the earlier authentication result. A remote attacker who can reach ldapd can complete a Bind as another identity. A missing connection can also cause a NULL pointer dereference. (ldapd is not enabled by default.)

A weakness has been identified in garycourt uri-js up to 4.4.1. This affects the function URI.parse of the file src/schemes/mailto.ts of the component Mailto Header Handler. This manipulation of the argument to causes uncaught exception. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.18.0, a crafted PDF containing indirect-object identifiers or generation-number tokens that continue for a long time without whitespace can cause pypdf/_reader.py and pypdf/generic/_base.py to scan excessive input through read_until_whitespace, resulting in long runtimes and application unavailability. This issue is fixed in version 6.18.0.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.17.0, a crafted PDF can provide unusually large Roman page-label values that cause pypdf/_page_labels.py to generate excessively large numeral strings when an application retrieves document page labels, consuming large amounts of memory and potentially making the application unavailable. This issue is fixed in version 6.17.0.

piscina is a node.js worker pool implementation. Prior to 4.9.4, 5.3.2, and 6.0.0-rc.5, Piscina stores ThreadPool.options in src/index.ts as a plain object that inherits from Object.prototype. Applications with a separate prototype-pollution primitive can therefore supply inherited values for security-sensitive options that do not have own defaults. An inherited execArgv value is passed to the Node.js Worker constructor and can preload attacker-controlled code in worker threads, an inherited loadBalancer function can execute during task scheduling, and inherited env values can alter worker environments. This issue is fixed in versions 4.9.4, 5.3.2, and 6.0.0-rc.5.

Mako is a template library written in Python. Prior to 1.4.2, on Windows, TemplateLookup.get_template() in mako/lookup.py resolves template URIs with posixpath, while Template.__init__() in mako/template.py validates them with os.path, which uses ntpath. A URI beginning with a drive designator causes ntpath to absorb the traversal segments before the leading dot-dot check, while posixpath resolution can escape the configured template directory. An application that passes attacker-controlled template names or include paths can disclose process-readable files on the same volume, and a targeted file containing Mako template syntax may also be parsed and executed as a template. Raw URL paths are generally normalized before reaching this form, but query strings, form or JSON bodies, route parameters, and dynamic include expressions can preserve it. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.2.

basic-ftp is an FTP client for Node.js. Prior to 6.2.1, Client.list() can be forced by a malicious or compromised FTP server to spend quadratic CPU time parsing a directory listing because the RE_LINE expression in src/parseListUnix.ts backtracks across adjacent variable-length owner and group fields when a long Unix-style line has a valid prefix but cannot satisfy the later size and date fields. parseList() selects a parser from the last nonblank line and then applies it to every line, so a normal final line can select the Unix parser while an earlier crafted line blocks the Node.js event loop and freezes the process. This issue is fixed in version 6.2.1.

ZeroClaw versions before 0.8.5 built with plugins-wasm feature contain a path traversal vulnerability in plugin installation that fails to validate the wasm_path manifest field. Attackers can convince users to install crafted plugins that write arbitrary files to paths outside the plugins directory, such as shell startup files, enabling code execution.

OpenClaw Windows Node before 2026.7.1 contains an incomplete environment-variable sanitizer in system.run that fails to block GIT_CONFIG_*, DOTNET_STARTUP_HOOKS, and JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS variables. Attackers with gateway or agent access can supply these variables to allowlisted tools like git, dotnet, or java to load attacker-controlled code and achieve arbitrary code execution.

OpenClaw Windows Node through 2026.9.4 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the canvas.present capability that bypasses URL risk evaluation enforced by canvas.navigate. Attackers with gateway or agent access can issue canvas.present to make the node's WebView send requests to localhost, private networks, or tailnet services from the user's machine.

OpenClaw Windows Node before 2026.7.1 contains an incomplete validation vulnerability in system.execApprovals.set that accepts wildcard-executable rules and abusable system binaries like mshta, rundll32, and certutil. Remote callers can add broad allow rules to execute arbitrary commands on the Windows host through system.run without operator checks or user prompts.

OpenClaw Windows Node before 2026.7.1 contains an allocation of resources without limits vulnerability in the gateway WebSocket transport that allows connected gateways to exhaust node memory. Attackers can send an unending sequence of WebSocket continuation frames without EndOfMessage to cause unbounded memory growth until the node process crashes.

OpenClaw Windows Node before 2026.7.1 contains an incorrect authorization vulnerability in the system.run exec-approval policy where ExecShellWrapperParser fails to split commands on pipe operators or extract command substitutions. Connected gateways or agents can bypass approval rules by placing denied commands behind allowed prefixes using pipe operators or command substitution syntax, achieving arbitrary command execution on Windows hosts.

OpenClaw Windows Node before 2026.7.1-3 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in NodeService capture handlers that allows connected gateways or agents to perform screen snapshots, camera snaps, and location captures without consent prompts. Attackers can invoke screen.snapshot, camera.snap, and location.get over the node WebSocket to silently capture screenshots, photograph users through webcams, and obtain device geolocation without user interaction.