Possible buffer over read due to lack of data length check in QVR Service configuration in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer IOT, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon Wearables

CVE-2021-1985: October 2021 Security Bulletin | Qualcomm

Possible buffer over read occurs due to lack of length check of request buffer in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer IOT, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon Voice & Music

CVE-2021-1952: September 2021 Security Bulletin | Qualcomm

A denial of service vulnerability exists in the web server functionality of Moxa SDS-3008 Series Industrial Ethernet Switch 2.1. A specially-crafted HTTP message header can lead to denial of service. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.

As of June 15, 2022, this site no longer supports Internet Explorer. Please use another browser for the best experience on our site.

**Please sign in**

**SUMMARY**

**SDS-3008 Series Multiple Web Vulnerabilities**

*   Security Advisory ID: MPSA-230101
*   Version: V1.0
*   Release Date: Feb 02, 2023
*   Reference:
    *   NVD CVE 2022-40693 (mitre.org)
        
    *   NVD CVE-2022-40224 (mitre.org)
        
    *   NVD CVE-2022-41311 (mitre.org)
        
    *   NVD CVE-2022-41312 (mitre.org)
        
    *   NVD CVE-2022-41313 (mitre.org)
        
    *   NVD CVE-2022-40691 (mitre.org)
        

The SDS-3008 Series web server is affected by multiple vulnerabilities.   
\-    A remote attacker may disclose unauthorized information or perform a denial-of-service attack.  
\-    A remote attacker may execute arbitrary script code in the browser of an unsuspecting user.

The identified vulnerability types and potential impacts are shown below:

Item

Vulnerability Type

Impact

1

Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information (CWE-319)  
CVE-2022-40693

A cleartext transmission vulnerability exists in the web application functionality of Moxa’s SDS-3008 Series Industrial Ethernet switch v2.1. A specially crafted network sniffing tool can lead to disclosure of sensitive information. An attacker can sniff network traffic to trigger this vulnerability.

2

Insufficient Resource Pool (CWE-410)  
CVE-2022-40224

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the web server functionality of Moxa’s SDS-3008 Series Industrial Ethernet switch v2.1. A specially crafted HTTP message header can lead to a denial-of-service attack. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.

3

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (CWE-79)  
CVE-2022-41311, CVE-2022-41312, CVE-2022-41313

A stored cross-site scripting vulnerability exists in the web application functionality of Moxa’s SDS-3008 Series Industrial Ethernet switch v2.1. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary JavaScript code being executed. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.

4

Information Exposure (CWE-200)  
CVE-2022-40691

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the web application functionality of Moxa’s SDS-3008 Series Industrial Ethernet switch v2.1. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to disclosure of sensitive information. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.

**AFFECTED PRODUCTS AND SOLUTIONS**

**Affected Products:**

The affected products and firmware versions are shown below.

Product Series

Affected Versions

SDS-3008 Series

Firmware Version 2.1 or lower

**Solutions:**

Moxa has developed appropriate solutions to address the vulnerabilities. The solutions for affected products are shown below.

Product Series

Solutions

SDS-3008 Series

Please contact Moxa Technical Support for the security patch.

**Acknowledgment:**

We would like to express our appreciation to Cisco Talos team for reporting the vulnerability, working with us to help enhance the security of our products, and helping us provide a better service to our customers.

**Revision History:**

VERSION

DESCRIPTION

RELEASE DATE

1.0

First Release

Feb 2, 2023

*     Print this page
    
*   You can manage and share your saved list in My Moxa
    

**Let’s get that fixed**

If you are concerned about a potential cybersecurity vulnerability, please contact us and one of technical support staff will get in touch with you.

Report a Vulnerability

You have some items waiting in your bag; click here to finish your quote!

Feedback

CVE-2022-40224: SDS-3008 Series Multiple Web Vulnerabilities

Use-after-free vulnerability in the DisplayObject class in the ActionScript 3 (AS3) implementation in Adobe Flash Player 13.x through 13.0.0.302 on Windows and OS X, 14.x through 18.0.0.203 on Windows and OS X, 11.x through 11.2.202.481 on Linux, and 12.x through 18.0.0.204 on Linux Chrome installations allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via crafted Flash content that leverages improper handling of the opaqueBackground property, as exploited in the wild in July 2015.

**Release date:** July 10, 2015

**Vulnerability identifier:** APSA15-04

Priority: See table below

**CVE number**: CVE-2015-5122, CVE-2015-5123

**Platform:** Windows, Macintosh and Linux

Critical vulnerabilities (CVE-2015-5122, CVE-2015-5123) have been identified in Adobe Flash Player 18.0.0.204 and earlier versions for Windows, Macintosh and Linux. Successful exploitation could cause a crash and potentially allow an attacker to take control of the affected system.  

Adobe is aware of reports that exploits targeting these vulnerabilities have been published publicly. Adobe expects to make updates available during the week of July 12, 2015.

UPDATE (July 14): Adobe recommends users update their product installations to the latest versions using the instructions provided in the "Solution" section in Security Bulletin APSB15-18.

*   Adobe Flash Player 18.0.0.203 and earlier versions for Windows and Macintosh 
*   Adobe Flash Player 18.0.0.204 and earlier versions for Linux installed with Google Chrome  
    
*   Adobe Flash Player Extended Support Release version 13.0.0.302 and earlier 13.x versions for Windows and Macintosh
*   Adobe Flash Player Extended Support Release version 11.2.202.481 and earlier 11.x versions for Linux  
    

To verify the version of Adobe Flash Player installed on your system, access the About Flash Player page, or right-click on content running in Flash Player and select "About Adobe (or Macromedia) Flash Player" from the menu. If you use multiple browsers, perform the check for each browser you have installed on your system.   

Adobe categorizes these issues as critical vulnerabilities

Adobe would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for reporting these issues and for working with Adobe to help protect our customers:

*   Dhanesh Kizhakkinan of FireEye as well as Peter Pi of TrendMicro (CVE-2015-5122)
*   Peter Pi of TrendMicro as well as slipstream/RoL (@TheWack0lian) (CVE-2015-5123)

July 11, 2015: added information on CVE-2015-5123

July 12, 2015: added acknowledgement on CVE-2015-5123

July 14, 2015: added reference to security bulletin APSB15-18. 

August 10, 2015: added credit to TrendMicro for independently reporting CVE-2015-5122.

CVE-2015-5122: Adobe Security Bulletin

libfreerdp/codec/planar.c in FreeRDP version > 1.0 through 2.0.0-rc4 has an Out-of-bounds Write.

**Commits on Apr 26, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 25, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 23, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 22, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 21, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 20, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 19, 2022**

2.  Logging and parser fixes (#7796)
    
    \* Fixed remdesk settings pointer
    
    \* Fixed sign warnings in display\_write\_monitor\_layout\_pdu
    
    \* Use freerdp\_abort\_connect\_context and freerdp\_shall\_disconnect\_context
    
    \* Added and updates settings
    
    \* info assert/dynamic timezone
    
    \* mcs assert/log/flags
    
    \* Fixed and added assertions for wStream
    
    \* Unified stream length checks
    
    \* Added new function to check for lenght and log
    \* Replace all usages with this new function
    
    \* Cleaned up PER, added parser logging
    
    \* Cleaned up BER, added parser logging
    
    \* log messages
    
    \* Modified Stream\_CheckAndLogRequiredLengthEx
    
    \* Allow custom format and options
    \* Add Stream\_CheckAndLogRequiredLengthExVa for prepared va\_list
    
    \* Improved Stream\_CheckAndLogRequiredLength
    
    \* Now have log level adjustable
    \* Added function equivalents for existing logger
    \* Added a backtrace in case of a failure is detected
    
    \* Fixed public API input checks
    
    ![@akallabeth](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3472254?s=40&v=4)
    

**Commits on Apr 15, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 13, 2022**

1.  Fix #7793: Do not expose internal input API (#7794)
    
    \* Fixed GetFileInformationByHandle initializers
    
    \* Fix #7793: Do not expose internal input API
    
    Slow-Path input uses UINT16 for scancodes on wire, but only the
    lower byte is actually used. (the extended fields are sent in
    keyboardFlags field)
    Hide this implementation detail and adjust the API to use UINT8
    for the code instead just like the corresponding Fast-Path PDU
    
    \* Added a warning for problematic slow path keyCodes
    
    ![@akallabeth](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3472254?s=40&v=4)
    

**Commits on Apr 12, 2022**

1.  proxy: correctly use the RemoteApp flag
    
    The flag was forcing the remoteApp usage when set, while all the other equivalent
    flags just enable the feature. This patch fixes that, so now setting RemoteApp = TRUE
    just enables the front client to do remoteApps.
    
     ![@hardening](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3237998?s=40&v=4)![@akallabeth](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3472254?s=40&v=4)
    

**Commits on Apr 10, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 8, 2022**

**Commits on Apr 7, 2022**

1.  Switch to official OpenSSL Download location and away from github.
    
    One of the benefits is that this adds support for building with OpenSSL 3.0 versions without breaking support for building with 1.1.1.
    
    As part of the work, the assumption that there is an /archive/ in the download path is removed.
    
    Furthermore, cmake modules for finding OpenSSL are updated in order to support 3.0.
    
     ![@iiordanov](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1421911?s=40&v=4)![@akallabeth](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3472254?s=40&v=4)
    

**Commits on Apr 6, 2022**

CVE-2020-11521: Commits · FreeRDP/FreeRDP

The Chinese government recently began saber-rattling about American cyberespionage. The catch? It’s all old news.

For the best part of a decade, US officials and cybersecurity companies have been naming and shaming hackers they believe work for the Chinese government. These hackers have stolen terabytes of data from pharmaceutical companies to video game firms, compromised servers, stripped security protections, and highjacked hacking tools, according to security experts. And as China’s alleged hacking has grown in aggression, individual Chinese hackers face indictments. However, things may be changing.

Since the start of 2022, there has been a marked uptick in China’s Foreign Ministry and the country’s cybersecurity firms calling out alleged US cyberespionage. Until now, these allegations have been a rarity. But the disclosures come with a catch: They appear to rely on years-old technical details, which are already publicly known and don’t contain fresh information. The move may be a strategic change for China as the nation tussles to cement its position as a tech superpower.

“These are useful materials for China’s tit-for-tat propaganda campaigns when they faced US accusation and indictment of China’s cyberespionage activities,” says Che Chang, a cyber threat analyst at Taiwan-based cybersecurity firm TeamT5.

China’s accusations, which were noted by security journalist Catalin Cimpanu, all follow a very similar pattern. On February 23, Chinese security company Pangu Lab published allegations that the US National Security Agency’s elite Equation Group hackers used a backdoor, dubbed Bvp47, to monitor 45 countries. The _Global Times_, a tabloid newspaper that’s part of China’s state-controlled media, ran an exclusive report on the research. Weeks later, on March 14, the newspaper had a second exclusive story about another NSA tool, NOPEN, based on details from China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center. A week later, Chinese cybersecurity firm Qihoo 360 alleged that US hackers had been attacking Chinese companies and organizations. And on April 19, the Global Times reported on further National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center findings around HIVE, malware developed by the CIA.

The reports are accompanied with a flurry of statements—often in response to questions from the media—by China’s Foreign Ministry spokespeople. “China is gravely concerned over the irresponsible malicious cyber activities of the US government,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said in April after one of the announcements. “We urge the US side to explain itself and immediately stop such malicious activities.” Over the first nine days of May, Foreign Ministry spokespeople commented on US cyber activities at least three times. “One cannot whitewash himself by smearing others,” Zhao Lijian said in one instance.

While cyber activity undertaken by state actors is often wrapped in highly classified files, many hacking tools developed by the US are no longer a secret. In 2017, WikiLeaks published 9,000 documents in the Vault7 leaks, which detailed many of the CIA’s tools. A year earlier, the mysterious Shadow Brokers hacking group stole data from one of the NSA’s elite hacking teams and slowly dripped the data to the world. The Shadow Brokers leaks included dozens of exploits and new zero-days—including the Eternal Blue hacking tool, which has since been used repeatedly in some of the largest cyberattacks. Many of the details in the Shadow Brokers leaks match up with details about NSA which were disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013. (An NSA spokesperson said it has “no comment” for this story; the agency routinely does not comment on its activity.)

Ben Read, director of cyberespionage analysis at US cybersecurity firm Mandiant, says China’s state media push of alleged US hacking seems to be consistent, but it mostly contains older information. “Everything that I've seen they've written about, they tie back to the US through either the Snowden leaks or Shadow Brokers,” Read says.

Pangu Lab’s February report on Bvp47—the only publication on its website—says it initially discovered the details in 2013 but pieced them together after the Shadow Brokers leaks in 2017. “The report was based on a decade-old malware, and the decryption key is the same” as in WikiLeaks, Che says. The details of HIVE and NOPEN have also been available for years. Neither Pangu Labs or Qihoo 360, which has been on the US government sanctions list since 2020, responded to requests for comment on their research or methodology. Although a Pangu spokesperson previously said it recently published the old details, and it had taken a long time to analyze the data.

Megha Pardhi, a China researcher at Takshashila Institution, an Indian think tank, says the publications and follow-up comments from officials can serve multiple purposes. Internally, China can use it for propaganda and to send a message to the US that it has the capability to attribute cyber activity. But beyond this, there is a warning to other countries, Pardhi says. “The message is that even though you're allied with the United States, they're still gonna come after you.”

“We oppose and crack down in accordance with law all forms of cyberespionage and attacks,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the US, says in a statement. Liu did not respond directly to questions around the apparent uptick in finger-pointing at the US this year, the evidence that was being used to do so, or why this may be happening years after details originally emerged. China is widely considered to be one of the most sophisticated and active state cyber actors—involved in spying, hacking for espionage, and gathering data. Western officials consider the country to be the biggest cyber threat, ahead of Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

“Recently, there have been many reports of US carrying cyber theft and attacks on China and the whole world,” Liu says in a statement that reflects comments made by China’s Foreign Ministry spokespeople this year. “The US should reflect on itself and join others to jointly safeguard peace and security in cyberspace with a responsible attitude.”

Many of the disclosures in 2022—there are only a handful of previous Chinese accusations against the US—stem from private cybersecurity companies. This is similar to how Western cybersecurity companies report their findings; they are not always incorporated into government talking points, however, and state-backed media is all but nonexistent.

The potential shift in tactics could play into wider policies around technology use and development. In recent years, China’s policies have focused on positioning itself as a dominant force in technology standards in everything from 5G to quantum computers. A raft of new cybersecurity and privacy laws have detailed how companies should handle data and protect national information—including the potential for hoarding previously unknown vulnerabilities.

“One explanation is, possibly, that we are engaged in a kind of ideological—or if you want to put it more prosaically, a marketing—battle with China,” says Suzanne Spaulding, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously a senior cybersecurity official in the Obama administration. The US-China relationship has been fraught in recent years, with tensions rising over national security issues including concerns of telecom giant Huawei. “China is offering, around the world, a competing model to Western-style democracy,” Spaulding says, noting that China may be responding to Western countries coming together on multiple issues since Russia invaded Ukraine.

In July 2021, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published plans to boost the private security industry by 2023. Companies based in China should spend more on their defenses against cyberattacks, the government department said at the time. It also said the whole cybersecurity industry within China should look to grow in size in the coming years, as well as bolster the development of network monitoring systems and threat detection techniques. “What we've started to see over the last couple of years, increasingly, is that companies in China are building their own capabilities,” says Adam Meyers, vice president of intelligence at US cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. “There's been a few that have waded into the threat intelligence space.”

But publicizing details of the long-known incidents still raises plenty of questions. Mandiant’s Read says he wonders exactly how many cyberespionage cases Chinese companies and authorities are finding. The answer would provide significant clues about their true capabilities. Read says: “Is this 50 percent of what they're finding? Is this 1 percent of what they're finding? Is this 90 percent of what they're finding?”

The move appears to be strategic, says TeamT5’s Che. “Considering the close relationship between China's cybersecurity firms and the Chinese government, our team surmises that these reports could be a part of China’s strategic distraction when they are accused of massive surveillance systems and espionage operations.”

The Mystery of China’s Sudden Warnings About US Hackers

For the best part of a decade, US officials and cybersecurity companies have been naming and shaming hackers they believe work for the Chinese government. These hackers have stolen terabytes of data from companies like pharmaceutical and video game firms, compromised servers, stripped security protections, and highjacked hacking tools, according to security experts. And as China’s alleged hacking has grown more brazen, individual Chinese hackers face indictments. However, things may be changing.

Since the start of 2022, China’s Foreign Ministry and the country’s cybersecurity firms have increasingly been calling out alleged US cyberespionage. Until now, these allegations have been a rarity. But the disclosures come with a catch: They appear to rely on years-old technical details, which are already publicly known and don’t contain fresh information. The move may be a strategic change for China as the nation tussles to cement its position as a tech superpower.

“These are useful materials for China’s tit-for-tat propaganda campaigns when they faced US accusation and indictment of China’s cyberespionage activities,” says Che Chang, a cyber threat analyst at the Taiwan-based cybersecurity firm TeamT5.

China’s accusations, which were noted by security journalist Catalin Cimpanu, all follow a very similar pattern. On February 23, Chinese security company Pangu Lab published allegations that the US National Security Agency’s elite Equation Group hackers used a backdoor, dubbed Bvp47, to monitor 45 countries. The _Global Times_, a tabloid newspaper that’s part of China’s state-controlled media, ran an exclusive report on the research. Weeks later, on March 14, the newspaper had a second exclusive story about another NSA tool, NOPEN, based on details from China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center. A week later, Chinese cybersecurity firm Qihoo 360 alleged that US hackers had been attacking Chinese companies and organizations. And on April 19, the _Global Times_ reported on further National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center findings about HIVE, malware developed by the CIA.

The reports are accompanied with a flurry of statements—often in response to questions from the media—by China’s Foreign Ministry spokespeople. “China is gravely concerned over the irresponsible malicious cyber activities of the US government,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said in April after one of the announcements. “We urge the US side to explain itself and immediately stop such malicious activities.” Over the first nine days of May, Foreign Ministry spokespeople commented on US cyber activities at least three times. “One cannot whitewash himself by smearing others,” Zhao Lijian said in one instance.

While cyber activity undertaken by state actors is often wrapped in highly classified files, many hacking tools developed by the US are no longer secret. In 2017, WikiLeaks published 9,000 documents in the Vault7 leaks, which detailed many of the CIA’s tools. A year earlier, the mysterious Shadow Brokers hacking group stole data from one of the NSA’s elite hacking teams and slowly dripped the data to the world. The Shadow Brokers leaks included dozens of exploits and new zero-days—including the Eternal Blue hacking tool, which has since been used repeatedly in some of the largest cyberattacks. Many of the details in the Shadow Brokers leaks match up with details about NSA which were disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013. (An NSA spokesperson said it has “no comment” for this story; the agency routinely does not comment on its activities.)

Ben Read, director of cyberespionage analysis at the US cybersecurity firm Mandiant, says China’s state media push of alleged US hacking seems to be consistent, but it mostly contains older information. “Everything that I've seen they've written about, they tie back to the US through either the Snowden leaks or Shadow Brokers,” Read says.

Pangu Lab’s February report on Bvp47—the only publication on its website—says it initially discovered the details in 2013 but pieced them together after the Shadow Brokers leaks in 2017. “The report was based on a decade-old malware, and the decryption key is the same” as in WikiLeaks, Che says. The details of HIVE and NOPEN have also been available for years. Neither Pangu Labs or Qihoo 360, which has been on the US government sanctions list since 2020, responded to requests for comment on their research or methodology. A Pangu spokesperson previously said it recently published the old details, and it had taken a long time to analyze the data.

Megha Pardhi, a China researcher at Takshashila Institution, an Indian think tank, says the publications and follow-up comments from officials can serve multiple purposes. Internally, China can use it for propaganda and to send a message to the US that it has the capability to attribute cyber activity. But beyond this, there is a warning to other countries, Pardhi says. “The message is that even though you're allied with the United States, they're still gonna come after you.”

“We oppose and crack down in accordance with law all forms of cyberespionage and attacks,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the US, says in a statement. Liu did not respond directly to questions around the apparent uptick in finger-pointing at the US this year, the evidence that was being used to do so, or why this may be happening years after details originally emerged. China is widely considered to be one of the most sophisticated and active state cyber actors—involved in spying, hacking for espionage, and gathering data. Western officials consider the country to be the biggest cyber threat, ahead of Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

“Recently, there have been many reports of US carrying cybertheft and attacks on China and the whole world,” Liu says in a statement that reflects comments made by China’s Foreign Ministry spokespeople this year. “The US should reflect on itself and join others to jointly safeguard peace and security in cyberspace with a responsible attitude.”

Many of the disclosures in 2022—there are only a handful of previous Chinese accusations against the US—stem from private cybersecurity companies. This is similar to how Western cybersecurity companies report their findings; they are not always incorporated into government talking points, however, and state-backed media is all but nonexistent.

The potential shift in tactics could play into wider policies around technology use and development. In recent years, China’s policies have focused on positioning itself as a dominant force in technology standards in everything from 5G to quantum computers. A raft of new cybersecurity and privacy laws have detailed how companies should handle data and protect national information—including the potential for hoarding previously unknown vulnerabilities.

“One explanation is, possibly, that we are engaged in a kind of ideological—or if you want to put it more prosaically, a marketing—battle with China,” says Suzanne Spaulding, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously a senior cybersecurity official in the Obama administration. The US-China relationship has been fraught in recent years, with tensions rising over national security issues, including concerns about the telecom giant Huawei. “China is offering, around the world, a competing model to Western-style democracy,” Spaulding says, noting that China may be responding to Western countries coming together on multiple issues since Russia invaded Ukraine.

In July 2021, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published plans to boost the private security industry by 2023. Companies based in China should spend more on their defenses against cyberattacks, the government department said at the time. It also said the whole cybersecurity industry within China should look to grow in size in the coming years, as well as bolster the development of network monitoring systems and threat detection techniques. “What we've started to see over the last couple of years, increasingly, is that companies in China are building their own capabilities,” says Adam Meyers, head of intelligence at the US cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. “There's been a few that have waded into the threat intelligence space.”

But publicizing details of the long-known incidents still raises plenty of questions. Mandiant’s Read says he wonders exactly how many cyberespionage cases Chinese companies and authorities are finding. The answer would provide significant clues about their true capabilities. Read says: “Is this 50 percent of what they're finding? Is this 1 percent of what they're finding? Is this 90 percent of what they're finding?”

The move appears to be strategic, says TeamT5’s Che. “Considering the close relationship between China's cybersecurity firms and the Chinese government, our team surmises that these reports could be a part of China’s strategic distraction when they are accused of massive surveillance systems and espionage operations.”

In Apache Dubbo prior to 2.6.9 and 2.7.9, the usage of parseURL method will lead to the bypass of white host check which can cause open redirect or SSRF vulnerability.

**Email display mode:**

Modern rendering  
Legacy rendering

CVE-2021-25640

NVIDIA GPU Display Driver for Windows contains a vulnerability where a regular user can cause an out-of-bounds read, which may lead to code execution, denial of service, escalation of privileges, information disclosure, or data tampering.

CVE-2022-42267: Security Bulletin: NVIDIA GPU Display Driver - November 2022

Sudo before 1.9.13p2 has a double free in the per-command chroot feature.

Search

lenovo warranty check/lookup | check warranty status | lenovo support us