A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay, where it has a persistent Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability when displaying a repository's notification. This flaw allows an attacker to trick a user into performing a malicious action to impersonate the target user. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to confidentiality, integrity, as well as system availability.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay, where it does not properly protect the authorization token when authorizing email addresses for repository email notifications. This flaw allows an attacker to add email addresses they do not own to repository notifications.
A vulnerability was found in the Quay web application. Sessions in the Quay web application never expire. An attacker, able to gain access to a session, could use it to control or delete a user's container repository. Red Hat Quay 2 and 3 are vulnerable to this issue.
An information disclosure vulnerability was found in Red Hat Quay in versions before 3.3.1. This flaw allows an attacker who can create a build trigger in a repository, to disclose the names of robot accounts and the existence of private repositories within any namespace.
A vulnerability was found in quay-2, where a stored XSS vulnerability has been found in the super user function of quay. Attackers are able to use the name field of service key to inject scripts and make it run when admin users try to change the name.
A vulnerability was discovered in all quay-2 versions before quay-3.0.0, in the Quay web GUI where POST requests include a specific parameter which is used as a CSRF token. The token is not refreshed for every request or when a user logged out and in again. An attacker could use a leaked token to gain access to the system using the user's account.
A flaw was found in the way Red Hat Quay stores robot account tokens in plain text. An attacker able to perform database queries in the Red Hat Quay database could use the tokens to read or write container images stored in the registry.
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU.
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.
Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.