Vulnerabilities

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the theme-name fallback functionality in wp-includes/class-wp-theme.php in WordPress before 4.7.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted directory name of a theme, related to wp-admin/includes/class-theme-installer-skin.php.

A Directory Traversal vulnerability in DashboardFileReceiveServlet in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to upload a malicious file in a section of the file system where it can be executed.

A Directory Traversal vulnerability in servlet SoftwareImageUpload in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to write to arbitrary files, and consequently delete the files.

A Directory Traversal vulnerability in CliMonitorReportServlet in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to read arbitrary files including files with sensitive user information.

A CSRF vulnerability in Brocade Virtual Traffic Manager versions released prior to and including 11.0 could allow an attacker to trick a logged-in user into making administrative changes on the traffic manager cluster.

A Directory Traversal vulnerability in FileReceiveServlet in the Brocade Network Advisor versions released prior to and including 14.0.2 could allow remote attackers to upload a malicious file in a section of the file system where it can be executed.

Serendipity through 2.0.5 allows CSRF for the installation of an event plugin or a sidebar plugin.

comment.php in Serendipity through 2.0.5 allows CSRF in deleting any comments.

Open redirect vulnerability in comment.php in Serendipity through 2.0.5 allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in the HTTP Referer header.

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.

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ntopng through 2.4 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users, as demonstrated by admin/add_user.lua, admin/change_user_prefs.lua, admin/delete_user.lua, and admin/password_reset.lua.

Liferay Portal through 6.2.10 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary shell commands via a crafted Velocity template.