NVD List
| Id | Name | Description | Reject | CVSS Version | CVSS Score | Severity | Pub Date | Modified Date | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83544 | CVE-2014-8688 | An issue was discovered in Telegram Messenger 2.6 for iOS and 1.8.2 for Android. Secret chat messages are available in cleartext in process memory and a .db file. | 2 | 5 | Medium | 2017-03-18 | 2017-03-15 | View | |
| 22471 | CVE-2016-9837 | An issue was discovered in templates/beez3/html/com_content/article/default.php in Joomla! before 3.6.5. Inadequate permissions checks in the Beez3 layout override of the com_content article view allow users to view articles that should not be publicly accessible, as demonstrated by an index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&template=beez3 request. | 2 | 5 | Medium | 2017-01-19 | 2016-12-22 | View | |
| 82449 | CVE-2016-9337 | An issue was discovered in Tesla Motors Model S automobile, all firmware versions before version 7.1 (2.36.31) with web browser functionality enabled. The vehicle"s Gateway ECU is susceptible to commands that may allow an attacker to install malicious software allowing the attacker to send messages to the vehicle"s CAN bus, a Command Injection. | 2 | 4 | Medium | 2017-03-18 | 2017-03-14 | View | |
| 81615 | CVE-2017-3823 | An issue was discovered in the Cisco WebEx Extension before 1.0.7 on Google Chrome, the ActiveTouch General Plugin Container before 106 on Mozilla Firefox, the GpcContainer Class ActiveX control plugin before 10031.6.2017.0126 on Internet Explorer, and the Download Manager ActiveX control plugin before 2.1.0.10 on Internet Explorer. A vulnerability in these Cisco WebEx browser extensions could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the affected browser on an affected system. This vulnerability affects the browser extensions for Cisco WebEx Meetings Server and Cisco WebEx Centers (Meeting Center, Event Center, Training Center, and Support Center) when they are running on Microsoft Windows. The vulnerability is a design defect in an application programing interface (API) response parser within the extension. An attacker that can convince an affected user to visit an attacker-controlled web page or follow an attacker-supplied link with an affected browser could exploit the vulnerability. If successful, the attacker could execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the affected browser. | 2 | 9.3 | High | 2017-04-27 | 2017-04-04 | View | |
| 17473 | CVE-2016-10142 | An issue was discovered in the IPv6 protocol specification, related to ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) messages. (The scope of this CVE is all affected IPv6 implementations from all vendors.) The security implications of IP fragmentation have been discussed at length in [RFC6274] and [RFC7739]. An attacker can leverage the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments to trigger the use of fragmentation in an arbitrary IPv6 flow (in scenarios in which actual fragmentation of packets is not needed) and can subsequently perform any type of fragmentation-based attack against legacy IPv6 nodes that do not implement [RFC6946]. That is, employing fragmentation where not actually needed allows for fragmentation-based attack vectors to be employed, unnecessarily. We note that, unfortunately, even nodes that already implement [RFC6946] can be subject to DoS attacks as a result of the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments. Let us assume that Host A is communicating with Host B and that, as a result of the widespread dropping of IPv6 packets that contain extension headers (including fragmentation) [RFC7872], some intermediate node filters fragments between Host B and Host A. If an attacker sends a forged ICMPv6 PTB error message to Host B, reporting an MTU smaller than 1280, this will trigger the generation of IPv6 atomic fragments from that moment on (as required by [RFC2460]). When Host B starts sending IPv6 atomic fragments (in response to the received ICMPv6 PTB error message), these packets will be dropped, since we previously noted that IPv6 packets with extension headers were being dropped between Host B and Host A. Thus, this situation will result in a DoS scenario. Another possible scenario is that in which two BGP peers are employing IPv6 transport and they implement Access Control Lists (ACLs) to drop IPv6 fragments (to avoid control-plane attacks). If the aforementioned BGP peers drop IPv6 fragments but still honor received ICMPv6 PTB error messages, an attacker could easily attack the corresponding peering session by simply sending an ICMPv6 PTB message with a reported MTU smaller than 1280 bytes. Once the attack packet has been sent, the aforementioned routers will themselves be the ones dropping their own traffic. | 2 | 5 | Medium | 2017-07-18 | 2017-07-10 | View |
Page 1192 of 17672, showing 5 records out of 88360 total, starting on record 5956, ending on 5960
