| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A Buffer Overflow was discovered in EvoStream Media Server 1.7.1. A crafted HTTP request with a malicious header will cause a crash. An example attack methodology may include a long message-body in a GET request. |
| An issue was discovered in certain Apple products. iOS before 10.3.3 is affected. macOS before 10.12.6 is affected. tvOS before 10.2.2 is affected. watchOS before 3.2.3 is affected. The issue involves the "Kernel" component. It allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted app. |
| An issue was discovered in certain Apple products. iOS before 10.3.3 is affected. macOS before 10.12.6 is affected. tvOS before 10.2.2 is affected. watchOS before 3.2.3 is affected. The issue involves the "Kernel" component. It allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted app. |
| An issue was discovered in certain Apple products. iOS before 10.3.3 is affected. macOS before 10.12.6 is affected. tvOS before 10.2.2 is affected. watchOS before 3.2.3 is affected. The issue involves the "Kernel" component. It allows attackers to execute arbitrary code in a privileged context or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted app. |
| Remote code execution can occur in Asterisk Open Source 13.x before 13.14.1 and 14.x before 14.3.1 and Certified Asterisk 13.13 before 13.13-cert3 because of a buffer overflow in a CDR user field, related to X-ClientCode in chan_sip, the CDR dialplan function, and the AMI Monitor action. |
| Buffer overflow in ImageMagick before 6.9.0-4 Beta allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted SUN file. |
| Stack-based buffer overflow in the ValidateMove function in frontend/move.cc in GNU Chess (aka gnuchess) before 6.2.4 might allow context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a large input, as demonstrated when in UCI mode. |
| Stack-based buffer overflow in the parsePresentationContext function in storescp in DICOM dcmtk-3.6.0 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (segmentation fault) via a long string sent to TCP port 4242. |
| libavcodec/x86/mpegvideo.c in libav 11.8 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted file. |
| The _iprintf function in outputtxt.c in the listswf tool in libming 0.4.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read) via a crafted SWF file. |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in the parseSWF_DEFINEFONT function in parser.c in the listswf tool in libming 0.4.7 allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a crafted SWF file. |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in the parseSWF_RGBA function in parser.c in the listswf tool in libming 0.4.7 allows remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a crafted SWF file. |
| Buffer overflow in the zi_short function in zipinfo.c in Info-Zip UnZip 6.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a large compression method value in the central directory file header. |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in the PdfParser::ReadXRefSubsection function in base/PdfParser.cpp in PoDoFo allows attackers to have unspecified impact via vectors related to m_offsets.size. |
| The scripting engine in Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 through 11 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted web site, aka "Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from that described in CVE-2017-0040. |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151. |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151. |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151. |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151. |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151. |
