Security Vulnerabilities
- CVEs Published In 2024
A Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information vulnerability [CWE-312] in FortiClientWindows 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13 and FortiClientLinux 7.4.0 through 7.4.2, 7.2.0 through 7.2.7, 7.0.0 through 7.0.13 may permit a local authenticated user to retrieve VPN password via memory dump, due to JavaScript's garbage collector
A relative path traversal in Fortinet FortiWLM version 8.6.0 through 8.6.5 and 8.5.0 through 8.5.4 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via specially crafted web requests.
The Paid Membership Subscriptions – Effortless Memberships, Recurring Payments & Content Restriction plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.13.4 via the WordPress core search feature. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract sensitive data from posts that have been restricted to higher-level roles such as logged-in users.
IBM i 7.4 and 7.5 is vulnerable to an authenticated user gaining elevated privilege to a physical file. A user with authority to a view can alter the based-on physical file security attributes without having object management rights to the physical file. A malicious actor can use the elevated privileges to perform actions restricted by their view privileges.
In Optimizely Configured Commerce before 5.2.2408, malicious payloads can be stored and subsequently executed in users' browsers under specific conditions: XSS from client-side template injection in list item names.
In Optimizely Configured Commerce before 5.2.2408, malicious payloads can be stored and subsequently executed in users' browsers under specific conditions: XSS from JavaScript in an SVG document.
In Optimizely Configured Commerce before 5.2.2408, malicious payloads can be stored and subsequently executed in users' browsers under specific conditions: XSS from client-side template injection in search history.
The Cost Calculator Builder WordPress plugin before 3.2.43 does not have CSRF checks in some AJAX actions, which could allow attackers to make logged in users perform unwanted actions via CSRF attacks.
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise. Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest. As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation.
A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data.