CWE-697
DiscouragedIncorrect Comparison
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
262 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-F6J3-W9V3-CQ22
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 00:03 – Updated: 2026-04-01 00:03Impact
An authenticated user can bypass the immutability guard on session fields (expiresAt, createdWith) by sending a null value in a PUT request to the session update endpoint. This allows nullifying the session expiry, making the session valid indefinitely and bypassing configured session length policies.
Patches
The truthiness-based guard checks were replaced with key-presence checks that reject any value for protected session fields, including null.
Workarounds
There is no known workaround. A beforeSave trigger on _Session could be used to reject null values for expiresAt and createdWith.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "parse-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "9.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.7.0-alpha.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "parse-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "8.6.69"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34574"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-01T00:03:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T16:16:33Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAn authenticated user can bypass the immutability guard on session fields (`expiresAt`, `createdWith`) by sending a null value in a PUT request to the session update endpoint. This allows nullifying the session expiry, making the session valid indefinitely and bypassing configured session length policies.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe truthiness-based guard checks were replaced with key-presence checks that reject any value for protected session fields, including null.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThere is no known workaround. A `beforeSave` trigger on `_Session` could be used to reject null values for `expiresAt` and `createdWith`.",
"id": "GHSA-f6j3-w9v3-cq22",
"modified": "2026-04-01T00:03:19Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T00:03:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/security/advisories/GHSA-f6j3-w9v3-cq22"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34574"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/pull/10347"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/pull/10348"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/commit/90802969fc713b7bc9733d7255c7519a6ed75d21"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/commit/ebccd7fe2708007e62f705ee1c820a6766178777"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Parse Server has a session field immutability bypass via falsy-value guard"
}
GHSA-F6JC-WWHW-GPQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:06 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:06The Sieve engine in Dovecot before 2.3.15 allows Uncontrolled Resource Consumption, as demonstrated by a situation with a complex regular expression for the regex extension.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-28200"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697",
"CWE-770"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-28T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Sieve engine in Dovecot before 2.3.15 allows Uncontrolled Resource Consumption, as demonstrated by a situation with a complex regular expression for the regex extension.",
"id": "GHSA-f6jc-wwhw-gpq7",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:06:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:06:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-28200"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://dovecot.org/security"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JB2VTJ3G2ILYWH5Y2FTY2PUHT2MD6VMI"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TK424DWFO2TKJYXZ2H3XL633TYJL4GQN"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/06/28/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-F94Q-W3W8-CJ67
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-18 17:14 – Updated: 2026-09-18 17:14Summary
A parameter order bug in internal/webhook/tenant/validation/hostname_regex.go causes the hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate webhook to validate the old Tenant object's AllowedHostnames.Regex instead of the new one being submitted. This allows an invalid (malformed) regex to bypass admission validation and be persisted to etcd, causing a Denial of Service for all Ingress operations within the affected tenant.
Details
The TypedHandler[T] interface defines OnUpdate as:
// handlers.go
OnUpdate(c client.Client, reader client.Reader, obj T, old T, decoder admission.Decoder, recorder events.EventRecorder) Func
// ^^^ NEW ^^^ OLD
The dispatcher in handler.go:93 calls:
hndl.OnUpdate(c, reader, tnt, old, decoder, recorder)
// ^^^ NEW ^^^ OLD
However, hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate in hostname_regex.go declares its parameters in reversed order:
// hostname_regex.go (BUGGY)
func (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(
_ client.Client,
_ client.Reader,
old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant, // ← receives NEW tenant (mislabeled as old)
tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant, // ← receives OLD tenant (mislabeled as tnt)
...
) handlers.Func {
return func(...) *admission.Response {
if err := h.validate(tnt, req); err != nil { // ← validates OLD, not NEW
return err
}
return nil
}
}
All 11 other handlers in the same package declare (tnt, old) correctly. hostname_regex.go is the only one with the swap.
As a result, when a Cluster Admin updates Tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex to a malformed value, the webhook compiles the previous valid regex and returns Allow. The malformed regex is then written to etcd.
Subsequently, every Ingress CREATE or UPDATE in that tenant triggers validate_hostnames.go:160:
matched, _ = regexp.MatchString(allowedRegex, currentHostname)
regexp.MatchString with an invalid pattern returns (false, error). The error is silently ignored, matched is false, and every hostname is rejected — blocking all Ingress operations in the tenant until the Tenant object is manually corrected by an admin.
PoC
//go:build ignore
// Standalone reproducer for hostname_regex.go argument swap bug in Capsule
// No external deps - shows the bug logic using only stdlib
package main
import (
"fmt"
"regexp"
)
// Simulating the Tenant spec structure
type AllowedHostnames struct {
Regex string
}
type IngressOptions struct {
AllowedHostnames *AllowedHostnames
}
type TenantSpec struct {
IngressOptions IngressOptions
}
type Tenant struct {
Name string
Spec TenantSpec
}
// =========================================================
// BUGGY implementation (hostname_regex.go as-is)
// OnUpdate(_, _, old *Tenant, tnt *Tenant) → validates OLD
// =========================================================
func hostnameValidate(tnt *Tenant) error {
if tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames == nil {
return nil
}
if len(tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex) == 0 {
return nil
}
_, err := regexp.Compile(tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("Deny: unable to compile allowedHostnames allowedRegex")
}
return nil
}
// Dispatcher calls: OnUpdate(c, reader, newTenant, oldTenant, ...)
// Interface says: OnUpdate(c, reader, obj[NEW], old[OLD], ...)
//
// BUGGY handler receives: (old, tnt) meaning:
// 3rd param (labeled "old") = actually NEW
// 4th param (labeled "tnt") = actually OLD
// Then calls h.validate(tnt) = validates the OLD tenant
func buggyOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant *Tenant) error {
// BUG: parameters are SWAPPED vs the interface contract
old := newTenant // dispatcher's "new" arrives as "old" in this function
tnt := oldTenant // dispatcher's "old" arrives as "tnt" in this function
_ = old // unused in the real code too
return hostnameValidate(tnt) // validates OLD, not NEW
}
// CORRECT implementation (what it should be)
func correctOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant *Tenant) error {
_ = oldTenant
return hostnameValidate(newTenant) // validates NEW
}
// Simulate ingress hostname validation AFTER bad regex is stored
func validateIngressHostname(tenant *Tenant, hostname string) bool {
if tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames == nil {
return true
}
allowedRegex := tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex
if len(allowedRegex) == 0 {
return true
}
// This is validate_hostnames.go:160 - error is IGNORED
matched, _ := regexp.MatchString(allowedRegex, hostname)
return matched
}
func main() {
fmt.Println("=== Capsule Bug Reproducer: hostname_regex.go argument swap ===")
fmt.Println()
oldTenant := &Tenant{
Name: "demo-tenant",
Spec: TenantSpec{
IngressOptions: IngressOptions{
AllowedHostnames: &AllowedHostnames{
Regex: `^[\w.-]+\.example\.com$`, // valid regex
},
},
},
}
// Attacker (cluster admin) sets an INVALID regex in the new spec
newTenant := &Tenant{
Name: "demo-tenant",
Spec: TenantSpec{
IngressOptions: IngressOptions{
AllowedHostnames: &AllowedHostnames{
Regex: `[invalid-regex(`, // INVALID regex
},
},
},
}
fmt.Printf("Old tenant regex: %q (valid)\n", oldTenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)
fmt.Printf("New tenant regex: %q (INVALID)\n", newTenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)
fmt.Println()
// Step 1: Webhook runs OnUpdate
fmt.Println("--- Step 1: Webhook OnUpdate ---")
err := buggyOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant)
if err != nil {
fmt.Printf("[BUGGY] Webhook DENIES update: %v\n", err)
} else {
fmt.Println("[BUGGY] Webhook ALLOWS update (validates OLD regex) ← WRONG")
}
err = correctOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant)
if err != nil {
fmt.Printf("[CORRECT] Webhook DENIES update: %v ← EXPECTED\n", err)
} else {
fmt.Println("[CORRECT] Webhook ALLOWS update")
}
// Step 2: Invalid regex now stored in etcd - simulate ingress validation
fmt.Println()
fmt.Println("--- Step 2: Ingress creation after bad regex stored ---")
storedTenant := newTenant // bad regex is now in etcd
hostnames := []string{
"app.example.com",
"api.example.com",
"evil.attacker.com",
}
for _, h := range hostnames {
allowed := validateIngressHostname(storedTenant, h)
fmt.Printf(" Ingress hostname %q → allowed=%v", h, allowed)
if !allowed {
fmt.Print(" ← BLOCKED (DoS: invalid regex causes all hostnames to fail)")
}
fmt.Println()
}
fmt.Println()
fmt.Println("=== Result ===")
fmt.Println("Invalid regex bypasses webhook validation and gets stored.")
fmt.Println("All subsequent Ingress create/update in this tenant are BLOCKED.")
fmt.Println("CWE-697: Incorrect Comparison — wrong Tenant object is validated.")
}
// Simulates the buggy webhook behaviour
oldTenant := &Tenant{AllowedRegex: `^[\w-]+\.example\.com$`} // valid
newTenant := &Tenant{AllowedRegex: `[invalid-regex(`} // malformed
// Buggy OnUpdate: validates oldTenant (valid) → ALLOW
// Correct OnUpdate: validates newTenant (invalid) → DENY
// After malformed regex is stored, all ingress hostnames are rejected:
matched, _ := regexp.MatchString(`[invalid-regex(`, "app.example.com")
// matched = false, error ignored → Ingress blocked
Fix
Swap the parameter names in hostname_regex.go to match the interface contract:
// BEFORE (buggy)
func (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(
_ client.Client,
_ client.Reader,
old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
...
// AFTER (fixed)
func (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(
_ client.Client,
_ client.Reader,
tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,
...
Impact
A Cluster Admin (or a compromised admin account) can — intentionally or via a typo — set a malformed AllowedHostnames.Regex on any Tenant. The webhook silently accepts the update. All users in the affected tenant are subsequently unable to create or update any Ingress resource until an admin manually corrects the Tenant spec. This constitutes a targeted Denial of Service against the tenant's ingress layer.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/projectcapsule/capsule"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.13.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-61795"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-18T17:14:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA parameter order bug in `internal/webhook/tenant/validation/hostname_regex.go` causes the `hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate` webhook to validate the **old** Tenant object\u0027s `AllowedHostnames.Regex` instead of the **new** one being submitted. This allows an invalid (malformed) regex to bypass admission validation and be persisted to etcd, causing a Denial of Service for all Ingress operations within the affected tenant.\n\n### Details\n\nThe `TypedHandler[T]` interface defines `OnUpdate` as:\n\n```go\n// handlers.go\nOnUpdate(c client.Client, reader client.Reader, obj T, old T, decoder admission.Decoder, recorder events.EventRecorder) Func\n// ^^^ NEW ^^^ OLD\n```\n\nThe dispatcher in `handler.go:93` calls:\n```go\nhndl.OnUpdate(c, reader, tnt, old, decoder, recorder)\n// ^^^ NEW ^^^ OLD\n```\n\nHowever, `hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate` in `hostname_regex.go` declares its parameters in **reversed order**:\n\n```go\n// hostname_regex.go (BUGGY)\nfunc (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(\n _ client.Client,\n _ client.Reader,\n old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant, // \u2190 receives NEW tenant (mislabeled as old)\n tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant, // \u2190 receives OLD tenant (mislabeled as tnt)\n ...\n) handlers.Func {\n return func(...) *admission.Response {\n if err := h.validate(tnt, req); err != nil { // \u2190 validates OLD, not NEW\n return err\n }\n return nil\n }\n}\n```\n\nAll 11 other handlers in the same package declare `(tnt, old)` correctly. `hostname_regex.go` is the only one with the swap.\n\nAs a result, when a Cluster Admin updates `Tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex` to a malformed value, the webhook compiles the **previous valid regex** and returns `Allow`. The malformed regex is then written to etcd.\n\nSubsequently, every Ingress `CREATE` or `UPDATE` in that tenant triggers `validate_hostnames.go:160`:\n\n```go\nmatched, _ = regexp.MatchString(allowedRegex, currentHostname)\n```\n\n`regexp.MatchString` with an invalid pattern returns `(false, error)`. The error is silently ignored, `matched` is `false`, and **every hostname is rejected** \u2014 blocking all Ingress operations in the tenant until the Tenant object is manually corrected by an admin.\n\n### PoC\n\n```\n//go:build ignore\n// Standalone reproducer for hostname_regex.go argument swap bug in Capsule\n// No external deps - shows the bug logic using only stdlib\n\npackage main\n\nimport (\n\t\"fmt\"\n\t\"regexp\"\n)\n\n// Simulating the Tenant spec structure\ntype AllowedHostnames struct {\n\tRegex string\n}\n\ntype IngressOptions struct {\n\tAllowedHostnames *AllowedHostnames\n}\n\ntype TenantSpec struct {\n\tIngressOptions IngressOptions\n}\n\ntype Tenant struct {\n\tName string\n\tSpec TenantSpec\n}\n\n// =========================================================\n// BUGGY implementation (hostname_regex.go as-is)\n// OnUpdate(_, _, old *Tenant, tnt *Tenant) \u2192 validates OLD\n// =========================================================\nfunc hostnameValidate(tnt *Tenant) error {\n\tif tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames == nil {\n\t\treturn nil\n\t}\n\tif len(tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex) == 0 {\n\t\treturn nil\n\t}\n\t_, err := regexp.Compile(tnt.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\treturn fmt.Errorf(\"Deny: unable to compile allowedHostnames allowedRegex\")\n\t}\n\treturn nil\n}\n\n// Dispatcher calls: OnUpdate(c, reader, newTenant, oldTenant, ...)\n// Interface says: OnUpdate(c, reader, obj[NEW], old[OLD], ...)\n//\n// BUGGY handler receives: (old, tnt) meaning:\n// 3rd param (labeled \"old\") = actually NEW\n// 4th param (labeled \"tnt\") = actually OLD\n// Then calls h.validate(tnt) = validates the OLD tenant\nfunc buggyOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant *Tenant) error {\n\t// BUG: parameters are SWAPPED vs the interface contract\n\told := newTenant // dispatcher\u0027s \"new\" arrives as \"old\" in this function\n\ttnt := oldTenant // dispatcher\u0027s \"old\" arrives as \"tnt\" in this function\n\t_ = old // unused in the real code too\n\treturn hostnameValidate(tnt) // validates OLD, not NEW\n}\n\n// CORRECT implementation (what it should be)\nfunc correctOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant *Tenant) error {\n\t_ = oldTenant\n\treturn hostnameValidate(newTenant) // validates NEW\n}\n\n// Simulate ingress hostname validation AFTER bad regex is stored\nfunc validateIngressHostname(tenant *Tenant, hostname string) bool {\n\tif tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames == nil {\n\t\treturn true\n\t}\n\tallowedRegex := tenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex\n\tif len(allowedRegex) == 0 {\n\t\treturn true\n\t}\n\t// This is validate_hostnames.go:160 - error is IGNORED\n\tmatched, _ := regexp.MatchString(allowedRegex, hostname)\n\treturn matched\n}\n\nfunc main() {\n\tfmt.Println(\"=== Capsule Bug Reproducer: hostname_regex.go argument swap ===\")\n\tfmt.Println()\n\n\toldTenant := \u0026Tenant{\n\t\tName: \"demo-tenant\",\n\t\tSpec: TenantSpec{\n\t\t\tIngressOptions: IngressOptions{\n\t\t\t\tAllowedHostnames: \u0026AllowedHostnames{\n\t\t\t\t\tRegex: `^[\\w.-]+\\.example\\.com$`, // valid regex\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t},\n\t}\n\n\t// Attacker (cluster admin) sets an INVALID regex in the new spec\n\tnewTenant := \u0026Tenant{\n\t\tName: \"demo-tenant\",\n\t\tSpec: TenantSpec{\n\t\t\tIngressOptions: IngressOptions{\n\t\t\t\tAllowedHostnames: \u0026AllowedHostnames{\n\t\t\t\t\tRegex: `[invalid-regex(`, // INVALID regex\n\t\t\t\t},\n\t\t\t},\n\t\t},\n\t}\n\n\tfmt.Printf(\"Old tenant regex: %q (valid)\\n\", oldTenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)\n\tfmt.Printf(\"New tenant regex: %q (INVALID)\\n\", newTenant.Spec.IngressOptions.AllowedHostnames.Regex)\n\tfmt.Println()\n\n\t// Step 1: Webhook runs OnUpdate\n\tfmt.Println(\"--- Step 1: Webhook OnUpdate ---\")\n\n\terr := buggyOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[BUGGY] Webhook DENIES update: %v\\n\", err)\n\t} else {\n\t\tfmt.Println(\"[BUGGY] Webhook ALLOWS update (validates OLD regex) \u2190 WRONG\")\n\t}\n\n\terr = correctOnUpdate(newTenant, oldTenant)\n\tif err != nil {\n\t\tfmt.Printf(\"[CORRECT] Webhook DENIES update: %v \u2190 EXPECTED\\n\", err)\n\t} else {\n\t\tfmt.Println(\"[CORRECT] Webhook ALLOWS update\")\n\t}\n\n\t// Step 2: Invalid regex now stored in etcd - simulate ingress validation\n\tfmt.Println()\n\tfmt.Println(\"--- Step 2: Ingress creation after bad regex stored ---\")\n\tstoredTenant := newTenant // bad regex is now in etcd\n\n\thostnames := []string{\n\t\t\"app.example.com\",\n\t\t\"api.example.com\",\n\t\t\"evil.attacker.com\",\n\t}\n\n\tfor _, h := range hostnames {\n\t\tallowed := validateIngressHostname(storedTenant, h)\n\t\tfmt.Printf(\" Ingress hostname %q \u2192 allowed=%v\", h, allowed)\n\t\tif !allowed {\n\t\t\tfmt.Print(\" \u2190 BLOCKED (DoS: invalid regex causes all hostnames to fail)\")\n\t\t}\n\t\tfmt.Println()\n\t}\n\n\tfmt.Println()\n\tfmt.Println(\"=== Result ===\")\n\tfmt.Println(\"Invalid regex bypasses webhook validation and gets stored.\")\n\tfmt.Println(\"All subsequent Ingress create/update in this tenant are BLOCKED.\")\n\tfmt.Println(\"CWE-697: Incorrect Comparison \u2014 wrong Tenant object is validated.\")\n}\n```\n\n\n\n\n```go\n// Simulates the buggy webhook behaviour\noldTenant := \u0026Tenant{AllowedRegex: `^[\\w-]+\\.example\\.com$`} // valid\nnewTenant := \u0026Tenant{AllowedRegex: `[invalid-regex(`} // malformed\n\n// Buggy OnUpdate: validates oldTenant (valid) \u2192 ALLOW\n// Correct OnUpdate: validates newTenant (invalid) \u2192 DENY\n\n// After malformed regex is stored, all ingress hostnames are rejected:\nmatched, _ := regexp.MatchString(`[invalid-regex(`, \"app.example.com\")\n// matched = false, error ignored \u2192 Ingress blocked\n```\n\n### Fix\n\nSwap the parameter names in `hostname_regex.go` to match the interface contract:\n\n```go\n// BEFORE (buggy)\nfunc (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(\n _ client.Client,\n _ client.Reader,\n old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,\n tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,\n ...\n\n// AFTER (fixed)\nfunc (h *hostnameRegexHandler) OnUpdate(\n _ client.Client,\n _ client.Reader,\n tnt *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,\n old *capsulev1beta2.Tenant,\n ...\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nA Cluster Admin (or a compromised admin account) can \u2014 intentionally or via a typo \u2014 set a malformed `AllowedHostnames.Regex` on any Tenant. The webhook silently accepts the update. All users in the affected tenant are subsequently unable to create or update any Ingress resource until an admin manually corrects the Tenant spec. This constitutes a targeted Denial of Service against the tenant\u0027s ingress layer.",
"id": "GHSA-f94q-w3w8-cj67",
"modified": "2026-09-18T17:14:43Z",
"published": "2026-09-18T17:14:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/projectcapsule/capsule/security/advisories/GHSA-f94q-w3w8-cj67"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/projectcapsule/capsule/pull/1983"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/projectcapsule/capsule/commit/8d89d6865df6f41c7faa22fc9e807a57b01bfd0e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/projectcapsule/capsule"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/projectcapsule/capsule/releases/tag/v0.13.7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Capsule: hostnameRegexHandler.OnUpdate validates stale (old) Tenant regex, allowing invalid AllowedHostnames regex to bypass webhook validation"
}
GHSA-F9H8-WXP6-HPXV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:12 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:12An issue was discovered in Proofpoint Email Protection through 2019-09-08. By collecting scores from Proofpoint email headers, it is possible to build a copy-cat Machine Learning Classification model and extract insights from this model. The insights gathered allow an attacker to craft emails that receive preferable scores, with a goal of delivering malicious emails.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-20634"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-30T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Proofpoint Email Protection through 2019-09-08. By collecting scores from Proofpoint email headers, it is possible to build a copy-cat Machine Learning Classification model and extract insights from this model. The insights gathered allow an attacker to craft emails that receive preferable scores, with a goal of delivering malicious emails.",
"id": "GHSA-f9h8-wxp6-hpxv",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:12:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:12:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-20634"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moohax/Proof-Pudding"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moohax/Talks/blob/master/slides/DerbyCon19.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.proofpoint.com/us/security/CVE-2019-20634"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.proofpoint.com/us/security/security-advisories/pfpt-sn-2020-0001"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FGMR-VX7C-5WJ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-09-26 21:30 – Updated: 2021-07-27 21:51The code which checks HMAC in form submissions used String.equals() for comparisons, which results in a timing side channel for the comparison of the HMAC signatures. This could lead to remote code execution if an attacker is able to determine the correct signature for their payload. The comparison should be done with a constant time algorithm instead.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.tapestry:tapestry-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.4"
},
{
"fixed": "5.4.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10071"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-203",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2019-09-23T22:30:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-16T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The code which checks HMAC in form submissions used String.equals() for comparisons, which results in a timing side channel for the comparison of the HMAC signatures. This could lead to remote code execution if an attacker is able to determine the correct signature for their payload. The comparison should be done with a constant time algorithm instead.",
"id": "GHSA-fgmr-vx7c-5wj6",
"modified": "2021-07-27T21:51:14Z",
"published": "2019-09-26T21:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10071"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6e8f42c88da7be3c60aafe3f6a85eb00b4f8b444de26b38d36233a43@%3Cusers.tapestry.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7a437dad5af7309aba4d01bfc2463b3ac34e6aafaa565381d3a36460@%3Cusers.tapestry.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bac8d6f9e1b4059b319d9cba6f33219a99b81623476ec896138f851c@%3Cusers.tapestry.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7d9c54beb1dc97dcccc58d9b5d31f0f7166f9a25ad1beba5f8091e0c@%3Ccommits.tapestry.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r87523dd07886223aa086edc25fe9b8ddb9c1090f7db25b068dc30843@%3Ccommits.tapestry.apache.org%3E"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Timing attack on HMAC signature comparison in Apache Tapestry"
}
GHSA-FPFV-JQM9-F5JM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-18 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-21 20:12Incomplete string comparison in the numpy.core component in NumPy1.9.x, which allows attackers to fail the APIs via constructing specific string objects.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "numpy"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34141"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-21T20:12:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-17T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Incomplete string comparison in the numpy.core component in NumPy1.9.x, which allows attackers to fail the APIs via constructing specific string objects.",
"id": "GHSA-fpfv-jqm9-f5jm",
"modified": "2022-06-21T20:12:53Z",
"published": "2021-12-18T00:00:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34141"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/18993"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/18993#issuecomment-1010735102"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-fpfv-jqm9-f5jm"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/numpy/numpy"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/numpy/PYSEC-2021-855.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2022.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Incorrect Comparison in NumPy"
}
GHSA-FVH2-7539-6H22
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-25 06:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:49MultiBit HD before 0.1.2 allows attackers to conduct bit-flipping attacks that insert unspendable Bitcoin addresses into the list that MultiBit uses to send fees to the developers. (Attackers cannot realistically steal these fees for themselves.) This occurs because there is no message authentication code (MAC).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-6964"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-25T05:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "MultiBit HD before 0.1.2 allows attackers to conduct bit-flipping attacks that insert unspendable Bitcoin addresses into the list that MultiBit uses to send fees to the developers. (Attackers cannot realistically steal these fees for themselves.) This occurs because there is no message authentication code (MAC).",
"id": "GHSA-fvh2-7539-6h22",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:49:11Z",
"published": "2023-09-25T06:30:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-6964"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20160506095434/https://multibit.org/blog/2015/07/25/bit-flipping-attack.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G337-G667-MJVW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-06 09:31 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:31When curl is asked to use HSTS, the expiry time for a subdomain might overwrite a parent domain's cache entry, making it end sooner or later than otherwise intended.
This affects curl using applications that enable HSTS and use URLs with the
insecure HTTP:// scheme and perform transfers with hosts like
x.example.com as well as example.com where the first host is a subdomain
of the second host.
(The HSTS cache either needs to have been populated manually or there needs to have been previous HTTPS accesses done as the cache needs to have entries for the domains involved to trigger this problem.)
When x.example.com responds with Strict-Transport-Security: headers, this
bug can make the subdomain's expiry timeout bleed over and get set for the
parent domain example.com in curl's HSTS cache.
The result of a triggered bug is that HTTP accesses to example.com get
converted to HTTPS for a different period of time than what was asked for by
the origin server. If example.com for example stops supporting HTTPS at its
expiry time, curl might then fail to access http://example.com until the
(wrongly set) timeout expires. This bug can also expire the parent's entry
earlier, thus making curl inadvertently switch back to insecure HTTP earlier
than otherwise intended.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-9681"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-06T08:15:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "When curl is asked to use HSTS, the expiry time for a subdomain might\noverwrite a parent domain\u0027s cache entry, making it end sooner or later than\notherwise intended.\n\nThis affects curl using applications that enable HSTS and use URLs with the\ninsecure `HTTP://` scheme and perform transfers with hosts like\n`x.example.com` as well as `example.com` where the first host is a subdomain\nof the second host.\n\n(The HSTS cache either needs to have been populated manually or there needs to\nhave been previous HTTPS accesses done as the cache needs to have entries for\nthe domains involved to trigger this problem.)\n\nWhen `x.example.com` responds with `Strict-Transport-Security:` headers, this\nbug can make the subdomain\u0027s expiry timeout *bleed over* and get set for the\nparent domain `example.com` in curl\u0027s HSTS cache.\n\nThe result of a triggered bug is that HTTP accesses to `example.com` get\nconverted to HTTPS for a different period of time than what was asked for by\nthe origin server. If `example.com` for example stops supporting HTTPS at its\nexpiry time, curl might then fail to access `http://example.com` until the\n(wrongly set) timeout expires. This bug can also expire the parent\u0027s entry\n*earlier*, thus making curl inadvertently switch back to insecure HTTP earlier\nthan otherwise intended.",
"id": "GHSA-g337-g667-mjvw",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:31:32Z",
"published": "2024-11-06T09:31:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-9681"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2764830"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://curl.se/docs/CVE-2024-9681.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://curl.se/docs/CVE-2024-9681.json"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20241213-0006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/10"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/13"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/11/06/2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G433-PQ76-6CMF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-13 20:05 – Updated: 2026-03-25 21:37We publish a GitHub security advisory for any releases whose CHANGELOG includes bug-fixes, and encourage our users to upgrade. The latest releases of the hpke-rs and hpke-rs-rust-crypto crates contain the following bug-fixes:
hpke-rs
- #127: Fix
KemAlgorithm::TryFrom<u16>mapping where0x004Dincorrectly resolved toXWingDraft06instead ofXWingDraft06Obsolete. - #123: Fix potential overflow in context counter and switch to use u64.
- #128: Return errors when trying to use open/seal with export only ciphersuite and when using kdf export with an output that's too long (instead of truncating it)
The issue fixed in #123 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi. The issues fixed in #127 and #128 were first reported by Scott Arciszewski.
hpke-rs-rust-crypto
- #124: Error out on x25519 0 keys
The issue fixed in #124 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "hpke-rs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "hpke-rs-rust-crypto"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-190",
"CWE-20",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-13T20:05:10Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "We publish a GitHub security advisory for any releases whose CHANGELOG includes bug-fixes, and encourage our users to upgrade. The latest releases of the hpke-rs and hpke-rs-rust-crypto crates contain the following bug-fixes:\n\n## hpke-rs\n- [#127](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/127): Fix `KemAlgorithm::TryFrom\u003cu16\u003e` mapping where `0x004D` incorrectly resolved to `XWingDraft06` instead of `XWingDraft06Obsolete`.\n- [#123](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/123): Fix potential overflow in context counter and switch to use u64.\n- [#128](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/128): Return errors when trying to use open/seal with export only ciphersuite and when using kdf export with an output that\u0027s too long (instead of truncating it)\n\nThe issue fixed in #123 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi.\nThe issues fixed in #127 and #128 were first reported by Scott Arciszewski.\n\n## hpke-rs-rust-crypto\n- [#124](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/124): Error out on x25519 0 keys\n\nThe issue fixed in #124 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi.",
"id": "GHSA-g433-pq76-6cmf",
"modified": "2026-03-25T21:37:22Z",
"published": "2026-02-13T20:05:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/security/advisories/GHSA-g433-pq76-6cmf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/123"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/127"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/128"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/1c247b5c9aeca602ad2971c9bd49817fe2c308e6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/25248bd624cc0325c98a05c169a0c9aa0aced632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/3a8254938f43bdc4e0c9c4f987f8071f19779066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/b54c8bb83906331bdf4f606cafa30cd7fd20b531"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0070.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0072.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Bug fixes in hpke-rs, hpke-rs-rust-crypto"
}
GHSA-G58X-57FV-86JH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-06 15:30 – Updated: 2024-01-09 18:41Jenkins Google Login Plugin 1.7 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid token.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:google-login"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-41936"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-09T18:41:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-06T13:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jenkins Google Login Plugin 1.7 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid token.",
"id": "GHSA-g58x-57fv-86jh",
"modified": "2024-01-09T18:41:00Z",
"published": "2023-09-06T15:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41936"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/google-login-plugin/commit/2273af025ad06ee13ab73a5a070b10689c2db61e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/google-login-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2023-09-06/#SECURITY-3228"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/09/06/9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Google Login Plugin non-constant time token comparison"
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-10: Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
CAPEC-120: Double Encoding
The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.
CAPEC-14: Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-182: Flash Injection
An attacker tricks a victim to execute malicious flash content that executes commands or makes flash calls specified by the attacker. One example of this attack is cross-site flashing, an attacker controlled parameter to a reference call loads from content specified by the attacker.
CAPEC-24: Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
CAPEC-267: Leverage Alternate Encoding
An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard.
CAPEC-3: Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. An adversary can intentionally introduce leading "ghost" characters (extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer) that enable the input to pass the filters and therefore process the adversary's input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API.
CAPEC-41: Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads
This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-44: Overflow Binary Resource File
An attack of this type exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in the handling of binary resources. Binary resources may include music files like MP3, image files like JPEG files, and any other binary file. These attacks may pass unnoticed to the client machine through normal usage of files, such as a browser loading a seemingly innocent JPEG file. This can allow the adversary access to the execution stack and execute arbitrary code in the target process.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-46: Overflow Variables and Tags
This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
CAPEC-47: Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
CAPEC-52: Embedding NULL Bytes
An adversary embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s).
CAPEC-53: Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an adversary to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-67: String Format Overflow in syslog()
This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function.
CAPEC-7: Blind SQL Injection
Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.
CAPEC-71: Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
CAPEC-73: User-Controlled Filename
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
CAPEC-78: Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
CAPEC-79: Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
CAPEC-8: Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
CAPEC-80: Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.
CAPEC-9: Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
CAPEC-92: Forced Integer Overflow
This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code.