| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The The Ad Inserter – Ad Manager & AdSense Ads plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.19 This is due to the software allowing users to execute an action that does not properly validate a value before running do_shortcode. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes. Exploitation requires an administrator to have configured an ad block containing a dynamic tag such as {title}, {tag}, {category}, or {smart-tag} with display enabled on search pages, which is a normal and documented plugin configuration. |
| The The GeoDirectory – WP Business Directory Plugin and Classified Listings Directory plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.198 This is due to the software allowing users to execute an action that does not properly validate a value before running do_shortcode. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes. |
| SOCFortress CoPilot focuses on providing a single pane of glass for all your security operations needs. Prior to 0.1.76, in the reported deployment, case-report templates uploaded by `customer_user`, the lowest-privilege portal role, are later executed by non-sandboxed Jinja2 engines when an admin or analyst generates a report. The `/case-report-template/upload` route in `backend/app/incidents/routes/db_operations.py` validates only the filename-derived MIME type, not the template content. Templates share a global store without customer_code scoping, and `customer_user` can also list, download and delete them, allowing an attacker to replace a legitimate default template under the same name. In `backend/app/incidents/services/reports.py`, `render_document_with_context` uses `DocxTemplate` without a sandbox; in `backend/app/incidents/services/reports_pdf.py`, `render_html_template` uses a non-sandboxed `Environment` without autoescaping. Normal privileged requests to `POST /api/incidents/report/generate-report-docx` or `/generate-report-pdf` therefore evaluate attacker-controlled Jinja expressions as Python on the backend. The reported deployment executes commands as root, exposing all tenants' incident and SIEM data and stored connector credentials. The HTML/PDF wkhtmltopdf renderer additionally permits local-file reads and requests to internal services. This issue is fixed in version 0.1.76. |
| MindsDB OpenBBtable Code Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of MindsDB. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the OpenBBtable class. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute Python code. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-28388. |
| My Calendar WordPress plugin 3.8.8 before 3.8.11 contains a shortcode injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute registered shortcodes via the mcs search parameter. The mcs value reaches mc_search_results() in src/my-calendar-search.php without bracket encoding before do_shortcode runs, so a GET request triggers shortcodes on any page or post, enabling content injection and spoofing. |
| vsftpd through 3.0.5 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in ssl_data_accept() that allows unauthenticated attackers to hijack FTPS data connections by resuming their own TLS session ticket. Attackers sharing the victim's source IP can obtain a ticket via AUTH TLS, then connect to the victim's PASV port to steal downloads or inject upload data. |
| Missing verification of source of a communication channel in the default_bucket() function in Amazon SageMaker Python SDK V3 before 3.10.0 and V2 before 2.257.3 might allow remote actors to achieve code execution in the target SageMaker execution environment and obtain IAM credentials via pre-creation of a predictably named S3 bucket that the SDK uses without ownership validation.
To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to Amazon SageMaker Python SDK 3.10.0 (V3) or 2.257.3 (V2). |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.3, 10.2.8, 10.0.11, and 9.4.16, a user that holds a role with the edit_manager_xml capability could execute arbitrary operating-system commands using the permissions of the user account running Splunk Enterprise by opening the affected configuration in the Splunk Web Manager page.
The vulnerability is possible because Splunk Web evaluates user-controlled expressions from Manager XML without sufficiently restricting the expression syntax. |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.4, 10.2.8, 10.0.11, and 9.4.16, and Splunk Secure Gateway versions below 3.10.12, 3.9.26, and 3.8.73, a user who does not hold the "admin" or "power" Splunk roles could view dashboard and report listings beyond the requested filter scope while remaining within objects that the user can access.
The vulnerability is possible because Splunk Secure Gateway does not neutralize special characters in values before it creates filters for dashboard and report requests.
For more information see About configuring role-based user access (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/manage-users-and-security/10.2/manage-splunk-platform-users-and-roles/about-configuring-role-based-user-access) in the Splunk documentation. |
| vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.16.0 until 0.32.0, the /v1/responses endpoint allows an authenticated caller to place an attacker-controlled template in chat_template_kwargs[chat_template] when no server template is configured. ChatParams.get_apply_chat_template_kwargs() preserves that value without enforcing trust_request_chat_template, so the request can bypass the intended trust policy and cause CPU or memory exhaustion through Jinja rendering. This issue is fixed in version 0.32.0. |
| pybars4 through 0.9.13 contains a code injection vulnerability in pybars/_compiler.py that allows attackers to execute Python code via unescaped bracketed path segments in Handlebars templates. Attackers can supply a template with a crafted segment in a helper or block argument to break out of the generated resolve() string literal and execute code in the application process. |
| pybars3 through 0.9.7 contains a code injection vulnerability in pybars/_compiler.py that allows template authors to execute Python code via unescaped bracketed path segments. Attackers can supply Handlebars templates with crafted segments in helper or block arguments to break out of string literals and execute Python in the application process. |
| dbt enables data analysts and engineers to transform their data using the same practices that software engineers use to build applications. When a user installs a package in dbt, it has the ability to override macros, materializations, and other core components of dbt. This is by design, as it allows packages to extend and customize dbt's functionality. However, this also means that a malicious package could potentially override these components with harmful code. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.8.0, 1.6.14 and 1.7.14. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no kn own workarounds for this vulnerability. Users updating to either 1.6.14 or 1.7.14 will need to set `flags.require_explicit_package_overrides_for_builtin_materializations: False` in their configuration in `dbt_project.yml`. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in code. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.3 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.4 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of code in eval/exec. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.4 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.8 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.8 could allow a remote attacker with a low-privileged authenticated account to cause the Agentic Assistant to generate or submit component code using these unblocked patterns, resulting in arbitrary operating system command execution on the server. |
