Libexpat Project: >> Libexpat >> 2.2.1 Security Vulnerabilities
lookup in xmlparse.c in Expat (aka libexpat) before 2.4.3 has an integer overflow.
CVSS Score
8.8
EPSS Score
0.002
Published
2022-01-10
In doProlog in xmlparse.c in Expat (aka libexpat) before 2.4.3, an integer overflow exists for m_groupSize.
CVSS Score
8.1
EPSS Score
0.039
Published
2022-01-06
In Expat (aka libexpat) before 2.4.3, a left shift by 29 (or more) places in the storeAtts function in xmlparse.c can lead to realloc misbehavior (e.g., allocating too few bytes, or only freeing memory).
CVSS Score
8.8
EPSS Score
0.004
Published
2022-01-01
In libexpat before 2.2.8, crafted XML input could fool the parser into changing from DTD parsing to document parsing too early; a consecutive call to XML_GetCurrentLineNumber (or XML_GetCurrentColumnNumber) then resulted in a heap-based buffer over-read.
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.004
Published
2019-09-04
In libexpat in Expat before 2.2.7, XML input including XML names that contain a large number of colons could make the XML parser consume a high amount of RAM and CPU resources while processing (enough to be usable for denial-of-service attacks).
CVSS Score
7.5
EPSS Score
0.008
Published
2019-06-24
The writeRandomBytes_RtlGenRandom function in xmlparse.c in libexpat in Expat 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 on Windows allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse ADVAPI32.DLL in the current working directory because of an untrusted search path, aka DLL hijacking.
CVSS Score
7.8
EPSS Score
0.0
Published
2017-07-30
expat 2.1.0 and earlier does not properly handle entities expansion unless an application developer uses the XML_SetEntityDeclHandler function, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption), send HTTP requests to intranet servers, or read arbitrary files via a crafted XML document, aka an XML External Entity (XXE) issue. NOTE: it could be argued that because expat already provides the ability to disable external entity expansion, the responsibility for resolving this issue lies with application developers; according to this argument, this entry should be REJECTed, and each affected application would need its own CVE.
CVSS Score
6.8
EPSS Score
0.0
Published
2014-01-21
Page 3