Security Vulnerabilities - CVEs Published In January 2017
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in wp-admin/update-core.php in WordPress before 4.7.1 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) name or (2) version header of a plugin.
CVSS Score
6.1
EPSS Score
0.008
Published
2017-01-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WordPress before 4.7.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via vectors involving a Flash file upload.
CVSS Score
8.8
EPSS Score
0.008
Published
2017-01-15
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the theme-name fallback functionality in wp-includes/class-wp-theme.php in WordPress before 4.7.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted directory name of a theme, related to wp-admin/includes/class-theme-installer-skin.php.
CVSS Score
6.1
EPSS Score
0.01
Published
2017-01-15
wp-mail.php in WordPress before 4.7.1 might allow remote attackers to bypass intended posting restrictions via a spoofed mail server with the mail.example.com name.
CVSS Score
5.3
EPSS Score
0.015
Published
2017-01-15
A CSRF vulnerability in Brocade Virtual Traffic Manager versions released prior to and including 11.0 could allow an attacker to trick a logged-in user into making administrative changes on the traffic manager cluster.
CVSS Score
8.0
EPSS Score
0.001
Published
2017-01-14
A Directory Traversal vulnerability in FileReceiveServlet in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to upload a malicious file in a section of the file system where it can be executed.
CVSS Score
9.8
EPSS Score
0.713
Published
2017-01-14
A Directory Traversal vulnerability in DashboardFileReceiveServlet in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to upload a malicious file in a section of the file system where it can be executed.
CVSS Score
9.8
EPSS Score
0.241
Published
2017-01-14
A Directory Traversal vulnerability in servlet SoftwareImageUpload in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to write to arbitrary files, and consequently delete the files.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.104
Published
2017-01-14
A Directory Traversal vulnerability in CliMonitorReportServlet in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to read arbitrary files including files with sensitive user information.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.051
Published
2017-01-14
An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic.
CVSS Score
8.6
EPSS Score
0.007
Published
2017-01-14