Adobe Campaign Classic (ACC) is affected by a Violation of Secure Design Principles vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized read access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.
Adobe Campaign Classic (ACC) is affected by an Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection') vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. A low-privileged attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction. Scope is changed.
The hawkBit device management client in subsys/mgmt/hawkbit accumulates the body of an HTTP response from the update server into a heap buffer in response_json_cb() (subsys/mgmt/hawkbit/hawkbit.c). The buffer is sized to hold the received body bytes but reserves no space for a terminating NUL. When the full response has arrived, the code writes response_data[downloaded_size] = '\0' — and whenever the accumulated body length equals the allocation, that terminator lands one byte past the end of the heap object (a heap-based out-of-bounds write, CWE-122 / CWE-787).
The body length and fragmentation are taken directly from the parsed HTTP response (rsp->body_frag_start / rsp->body_frag_len) and are fully controlled by the remote hawkBit server, which chooses its own response length. The precise trigger depends on how the buffer grows, and both forms are remotely reachable. Since v4.0.0 the reallocation is sized to exactly downloaded_size + body_len, so any response body larger than the 1100-byte initial buffer makes the out-of-bounds write deterministic; such response sizes are normal for hawkBit deployment metadata. Before v4.0.0 the buffer grew by doubling and the growth check ((downloaded_size + body_len) > response_buffer_size) is false at equality, so a response body whose length is exactly the current allocation — 1100 bytes with the default initial buffer — skips the reallocation entirely and writes the terminator at response_data[1100] of an 1100-byte object. The HTTP length-mismatch check does not catch this, because the declared and received lengths genuinely agree. Either form is reachable by a malicious, compromised, or man-in-the-middle update server (TLS is optional and, when enabled, does not protect against a hostile server), with no authentication of response content and no client-side length cap protecting the write.
The out-of-bounds write is a fixed single NUL byte immediately following the allocation, corrupting adjacent allocator metadata or the next allocation. The practical impact is heap corruption leading to denial of service (fault on a subsequent allocation or free), with the bounded, allocator-dependent possibility of further corruption. The fix sizes the buffer to the body length plus one and copies with memcpy, ensuring the terminator always lands within the allocation.
Apache NiFi 2.0.0 through 2.10.0 support creating, reading, and deleting Assets associated with Parameter Contexts through the REST API. The framework authorizes asset deletion against the owning Parameter Context using the supplied Parameter Context Identifier and Asset Identifier. The framework performed authorized based on the supplied Parameter Context Identifier without verifying the requested Identifier against the stored Identifier. Apache NiFi installations that do not implement different levels of authorization across Parameter Contexts are not subject to this vulnerability, because the framework enforces write permissions as the security boundary. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 2.11.0 is the recommended mitigation, which verifies Parameter Context ownership of the requested Asset before deletion using the same strategy applied to Asset read operations.
Apache NiFi 1.5.0 through 2.10.0 support gzip-encoded HTTP requests for the application REST API using a Jersey encoding filter. The framework enforced a configurable maximum request size on the compressed payload rather than the decompressed output, allowing a malicious client to send crafted requests that could consume excessive amounts of memory. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 2.11.0 is the recommended mitigation, which relocates response compression to Jetty Server and disables decompression of gzip-encoded HTTP requests.
Apache NiFI 1.10.0 through 2.10.0 provide a Parameter Context update REST API method that does not enforce authorization checking on components referencing Parameter values. Updating a Parameter Context can change parameter values that affect referencing components, but framework authorization was limited to read and write privileges on the Parameter Context itself. As a result of the missing authorization, an authenticated user authorized to modify a Parameter Context, but not authorized on referencing components, could alter Parameter values affecting those components. In deployments where a Parameter value contains executable scripting content, updating a Parameter can result in code execution during automatic component validation, without starting the referencing component. The impact was limited to stopped components by existing verification checks, and the issue applies only to deployments that use component-level authorization policies. Upgrading to Apache NiFi 2.11.0 is the recommended mitigation, which aligns the Parameter Context update method authorization with other methods, adding authorization checking on affected components.
Dell Display and Peripheral Manager (DDPM Mac), versions prior to 2.3.0.1005, contain an Improper Access Control vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of privileges and arbitrary code execution.
Dell Display and Peripheral Manager (DDPM Mac), versions prior to 2.3.0.1005, contain a Missing Authentication for Critical Function vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Elevation of privileges.
A
cryptographic weakness exists in affected Omada devices where site credentials
are protected using a legacy hashing algorithm that does not provide sufficient
protection.
An attacker
who obtains access to stored credential data may be able to recover valid credentials
to gain unauthorized access to affected devices or management environments.
A cryptographic
weakness exists in the Omada adoption protocol.
The protocol relies on hard-coded cryptographic keys to establish trust and
protect authentication exchanges between controllers and managed devices during
device adoption.
An attacker may
be able to impersonate trusted controllers or managed devices and gain access
to sensitive adoption-related communications.