Vulnerabilidades

The Paytm Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 2.8.9 does not verify that payment callbacks genuinely originate from the payment provider when its secret key has not been configured, which is its state immediately after activation, allowing unauthenticated attackers to change the status of arbitrary orders,…

The Paytm Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 2.8.9 does not properly escape data taken from payment callbacks before using it in a SQL statement, and the integrity check on those callbacks can be forged when the gateway is enabled without credentials, allowing unauthenticated users to perform SQL injection…

The Paytm Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 2.8.9 does not sanitize and escape data it stores from payment callbacks before outputting it in an admin page, and the integrity check on those callbacks can be forged when the gateway is enabled without credentials, allowing unauthenticated users to store scripts…

Comelit Multi-User Gateway for VIP System (model 1456B) firmware versions 2.9.1 and 2.10.0 expose a network-accessible management interface that does not require authentication. Through this interface, sensitive device configuration data - including the Remote Configuration Password - can be read in cleartext by a…

Comelit Multi-User Gateway for VIP System (model 1456B) firmware versions 2.9.1 and 2.10.0 fail to enforce server-side authorization on an administrative password-change function. An authenticated user level can invoke this function to overwrite the installer (administrator) account password.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently restrict which account a certificate could be assigned to. This could allow an attacker to associate a certificate with another user's account, affecting the confidentiality and integrity of that account's encrypted mail and, where certificate-based login is…

A resource exhaustion vulnerability in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly trigger a comparatively expensive server-side operation, causing a partial denial of service.

An authorization check in the large file exchange feature of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not correctly establish that the requesting user was a party to the package being requested. An authenticated user of that optional feature could read the subject, message body, and attachments of packages they neither…

On a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway cluster with database replication enabled, a party trusted by the cluster could submit a crafted serialized object that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing code execution as the gateway service account. Replication is disabled by default, and…

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…

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.

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…

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…

-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.

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…

Improper authentication in a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrative service. An administrative service in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not consistently enforce administrator authentication, so the required password check could be bypassed. An attacker who referenced a valid administrator account…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise…

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…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Unsafe Reflection and does not sufficiently restrict the code that the mail-processing pipeline could load from an imported rule configuration. An authenticated administrator with mail-rule configuration privileges could cause the gateway to load…

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to a path traversal weakness in an administrative import function allowed an authenticated administrator to write files to arbitrary locations on the server. This could potentially be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the underlying system.

The CODESYS Gateway Client allocates memory based on a size field in a gateway response without enforcing an appropriate upper limit. An unauthenticated remote attacker controlling a malicious gateway can exploit this behavior to trigger excessive memory consumption, resulting in a denial-of-service condition thus…