| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A path traversal vulnerability exists in Foxit PDF Editor/Reader's handling of embedded PDF resources. Insufficient validation of resource file paths may allow files to be written outside their intended locations, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution. |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.9, 40.9.2, 41.2.2, and 42.0.0-beta.5, apps that expose Promise-returning functions to web content via contextBridge may be vulnerable to a context isolation bypass. Untrusted web content could obtain access to the isolated preload world and, through it, every capability the preload script has. In renderers without a sandbox, or with nodeIntegration enabled, this may escalate to Node.js access. Apps are affected if they expose Promise-returning functions via contextBridge, the standard pattern for wrapping ipcRenderer.invoke, in windows that load untrusted content. This issue is fixed in versions 39.8.9, 40.9.2, 41.2.2, and 42.0.0-beta.5. |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.10, 40.9.3, 41.4.0, and 42.0.0, a custom scheme registered with supportFetchAPI: true but without corsEnabled: true was not subject to CORS enforcement. A page loaded from a remote origin could therefore fetch() or XMLHttpRequest that scheme cross-origin and read the full response body, rather than the read being blocked. Apps that serve sensitive data from such a scheme and load remote or untrusted content in a renderer are affected. This issue is fixed in versions 39.8.10, 40.9.3, 41.4.0, and 42.0.0. |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.10, 41.10.3, and 42.0.1, a sandboxed iframe without the allow-popups keyword could still open a new window or trigger setWindowOpenHandler with no user interaction because new-window navigations taking the OpenURL path did not apply the iframe sandbox popup restriction. Apps that embed untrusted content in sandboxed iframes and rely on the absence of allow-popups to prevent window creation are affected, while apps that deny window creation in setWindowOpenHandler or do not embed untrusted content in sandboxed iframes are not affected. This issue is fixed in 39.8.10, 41.10.3, and 42.0.1. |
| A use-after-free vulnerability exists in Foxit PDF Editor/Reader’s handling of JavaScript array objects. A specially crafted PDF may cause the application to access a released object during array processing, potentially resulting in application crashes or arbitrary code execution. |
| Foxit PDF Editor/Reader failed to validate the directory traversal path in the attachment file name, resulting in malicious attachments being able to be written to directories outside the expected secure area when the PDF is opened. |
| Foxit PDF Editor/Reader's FileOpen plugin did not adequately validate certain encryption metadata in specially crafted PDF files. This could leave an internal pointer in an invalid state, resulting in chained read and write access violations and potentially enabling arbitrary code execution. |
| When opening a specially crafted PDF, Foxit PDF Editor/Reader executes scripts that modify annotation rich-text attributes containing malformed font data. During subsequent annotation appearance reconstruction, it accesses an object after it has been released, resulting in a use-after-free condition and an application crash. |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of a specified quantity. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code execution as the gateway service account. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account. |
| A user-provisioning interface in Kiteworks Core did not verify that the requesting administrator was entitled to grant the role being assigned. An administrator whose delegated permissions covered role changes alone could therefore raise an account to full system-administrator privileges. |
| An identity-verification weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed the gateway to act on the Kiteworks platform on behalf of a user it had not authenticated, and to provision a platform account for an identity it did not already know. A remote, unauthenticated sender could potentially exploit this to obtain control of a platform account. |
| An XML parser used by Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not restrict external entity references. Where an optional, non-default message-processing feature is enabled, a remote and unauthenticated sender could potentially use a crafted message to read files accessible to the gateway service account, including cryptographic key material and credentials, and have them sent to a destination they control. |
| The sandbox that isolates document conversion on a Kiteworks appliance did not fully confine the code running inside it. Code already executing within that sandbox could potentially escape its confinement and act with the privileges of the service account that runs the application, which could allow an attacker in that position to read or modify application data and configuration, or to disrupt the service on the affected appliance. |
| A form-rendering interface in the Advanced Forms component is reachable without authentication so that published forms can be displayed to anonymous visitors, but it returned more data than the form itself required. Anyone who knew the web address of a published form could potentially retrieve the form owner's Kiteworks account profile, including personal details, along with parts of the deployment's configuration settings; no passwords, authentication tokens, or multi-factor secrets were exposed. |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. |
| A SQL injection vulnerability existed in Kiteworks Secure Data Forms, where a value derived from the authenticated user's stored account data was incorporated into a database query without proper sanitization. An authenticated user could potentially influence that value to inject SQL. Exploitation requires an authenticated session and applies only to deployments where a specific optional feature is in use. |
| An authenticated administrator of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could submit a crafted serialized object to a cluster management interface that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution in the context of the gateway service account. Exploitation requires an administrator account holding a specific queue-management privilege. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary commands to be executed on the affected gateway. |
