| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| In res/res_rtp_asterisk.c in Asterisk 11.x before 11.25.2, 13.x before 13.17.1, and 14.x before 14.6.1 and Certified Asterisk 11.x before 11.6-cert17 and 13.x before 13.13-cert5, unauthorized data disclosure (media takeover in the RTP stack) is possible with careful timing by an attacker. The "strictrtp" option in rtp.conf enables a feature of the RTP stack that learns the source address of media for a session and drops any packets that do not originate from the expected address. This option is enabled by default in Asterisk 11 and above. The "nat" and "rtp_symmetric" options (for chan_sip and chan_pjsip, respectively) enable symmetric RTP support in the RTP stack. This uses the source address of incoming media as the target address of any sent media. This option is not enabled by default, but is commonly enabled to handle devices behind NAT. A change was made to the strict RTP support in the RTP stack to better tolerate late media when a reinvite occurs. When combined with the symmetric RTP support, this introduced an avenue where media could be hijacked. Instead of only learning a new address when expected, the new code allowed a new source address to be learned at all times. If a flood of RTP traffic was received, the strict RTP support would allow the new address to provide media, and (with symmetric RTP enabled) outgoing traffic would be sent to this new address, allowing the media to be hijacked. Provided the attacker continued to send traffic, they would continue to receive traffic as well. |
| Polycom RealPresence Resource Manager (aka RPRM) before 8.4 allows remote authenticated users to obtain the installation path via an HTTP POST request to PlcmRmWeb/JConfigManager. |
| Microsoft Server Message Block 1.0 (SMBv1) allows an information disclosure vulnerability in the way that Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 handles certain requests, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0267, CVE-2017-0270, CVE-2017-0271, CVE-2017-0274, CVE-2017-0275, and CVE-2017-0276. |
| Microsoft Server Message Block 1.0 (SMBv1) allows an information disclosure vulnerability in the way that Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 handles certain requests, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0267, CVE-2017-0268, CVE-2017-0271, CVE-2017-0274, CVE-2017-0275, and CVE-2017-0276. |
| Microsoft Server Message Block 1.0 (SMBv1) allows an information disclosure vulnerability in the way that Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 handles certain requests, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0267, CVE-2017-0268, CVE-2017-0270, CVE-2017-0274, CVE-2017-0275, and CVE-2017-0276. |
| Microsoft Server Message Block 1.0 (SMBv1) allows an information disclosure vulnerability in the way that Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 handles certain requests, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0267, CVE-2017-0268, CVE-2017-0270, CVE-2017-0271, CVE-2017-0275, and CVE-2017-0276. |
| Microsoft Server Message Block 1.0 (SMBv1) allows an information disclosure vulnerability in the way that Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 handles certain requests, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-0267, CVE-2017-0268, CVE-2017-0270, CVE-2017-0271, CVE-2017-0274, and CVE-2017-0275. |
| The Microsoft Windows Kernel component on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016, allows an information disclosure vulnerability when it improperly handles objects in memory, aka "Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-11784, CVE-2017-11785, and CVE-2017-11814. |
| MetroCluster Tiebreaker for clustered Data ONTAP in versions before 1.2 discloses sensitive information in cleartext which may be viewed by an unauthenticated user. |
| An information disclosure vulnerability in Package Manager could enable a local malicious application to bypass operating system protections that isolate application data from other applications. This issue is rated as Moderate because it first requires compromising a privileged process. Product: Android. Versions: 7.0. Android ID: A-31251489. |
| The kernel in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, 1703, and Windows Server 2016 allows an authenticated attacker to obtain information via a specially crafted application. aka "Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2017-8491, CVE-2017-8490, CVE-2017-8489, CVE-2017-8488, CVE-2017-8485, CVE-2017-8483, CVE-2017-8482, CVE-2017-8481, CVE-2017-8480, CVE-2017-8478, CVE-2017-8479, CVE-2017-8476, CVE-2017-8474, CVE-2017-8469, CVE-2017-8462, CVE-2017-0299, CVE-2017-0300. |
| The kernel in Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, 1703, and Windows Server 2016 allows an authenticated attacker to obtain information via a specially crafted application. aka "Windows Kernel Information Disclosure Vulnerability," a different vulnerability than CVE-2017-8491, CVE-2017-8490, CVE-2017-8489, CVE-2017-8488, CVE-2017-8485, CVE-2017-8483, CVE-2017-8482, CVE-2017-8481, CVE-2017-8480, CVE-2017-8478, CVE-2017-8479, CVE-2017-8476, CVE-2017-8474, CVE-2017-8469, CVE-2017-8462, CVE-2017-0300, and CVE-2017-0297. |
| In Joomla! 3.4.0 through 3.6.5 (fixed in 3.7.0), multiple files caused full path disclosures on systems with enabled error reporting. |
| A vulnerability in the AutoVNF automation tool of the Cisco Ultra Services Framework could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to acquire sensitive information. The vulnerability is due to insufficient protection of sensitive data. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by browsing to a specific URL of an affected device. An exploit could allow the attacker to view sensitive configuration information about the deployment. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvd29358. Known Affected Releases: 21.0.v0.65839. |
| The salt-ssh minion code in SaltStack Salt 2016.11 before 2016.11.4 copied over configuration from the Salt Master without adjusting permissions, which might leak credentials to local attackers on configured minions (clients). |
| The Microsoft Windows Search component on Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2, Windows RT 8.1, Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 allows an information disclosure when it fails to properly handle objects in memory, aka "Microsoft Search Information Disclosure Vulnerability". |
| Mahara 15.04 before 15.04.8 and 15.10 before 15.10.4 and 16.04 before 16.04.2 are vulnerable to profile pictures being accessed without any access control checks consequently allowing any of a user's uploaded profile pictures to be viewable by anyone, whether or not they were currently selected as the "default" or used in any pages. |
| Xen maintains the _GTF_{read,writ}ing bits as appropriate, to inform the guest that a grant is in use. A guest is expected not to modify the grant details while it is in use, whereas the guest is free to modify/reuse the grant entry when it is not in use. Under some circumstances, Xen will clear the status bits too early, incorrectly informing the guest that the grant is no longer in use. A guest may prematurely believe that a granted frame is safely private again, and reuse it in a way which contains sensitive information, while the domain on the far end of the grant is still using the grant. Xen 4.9, 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, and 4.5 are affected. |
| IBM Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager 2.5 and 2.6 can be deployed with active debugging code that can disclose sensitive information. |
| In Moodle 3.3, the course overview block reveals activities in hidden courses. |
