CWE-697
DiscouragedIncorrect Comparison
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
261 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-QCXV-VF88-QQJ3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-10 21:30 – Updated: 2023-02-27 15:30Dell SupportAssist for Home PCs (version 3.11.2 and prior) contain Overly Permissive Cross-domain Whitelist vulnerability. An authenticated non-admin user could potentially exploit the issue and obtain sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-34366"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-10T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Dell SupportAssist for Home PCs (version 3.11.2 and prior) contain Overly Permissive Cross-domain Whitelist vulnerability. An authenticated non-admin user could potentially exploit the issue and obtain sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-qcxv-vf88-qqj3",
"modified": "2023-02-27T15:30:22Z",
"published": "2023-02-10T21:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-34366"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/000204114"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QQQV-WFVC-WRGW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-14 00:01 – Updated: 2022-03-18 00:01A limited authentication bypass vulnerability was discovered that could allow an attacker to achieve remote code execution and escalate privileges on the My Cloud devices. Addressed this vulnerability by changing access token validation logic and rewriting rule logic on PHP scripts.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-22990"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-13T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A limited authentication bypass vulnerability was discovered that could allow an attacker to achieve remote code execution and escalate privileges on the My Cloud devices. Addressed this vulnerability by changing access token validation logic and rewriting rule logic on PHP scripts.",
"id": "GHSA-qqqv-wfvc-wrgw",
"modified": "2022-03-18T00:01:43Z",
"published": "2022-01-14T00:01:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-22990"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.westerndigital.com/support/product-security/wdc-22002-my-cloud-os5-firmware-5-19-117"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-22-076"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-22-347"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RCF8-G8JV-VG6P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-24 21:56 – Updated: 2023-03-30 22:16Impact
If the stride and window size are not positive for tf.raw_ops.AvgPoolGrad, it can give an FPE.
import tensorflow as tf
import numpy as np
@tf.function(jit_compile=True)
def test():
y = tf.raw_ops.AvgPoolGrad(orig_input_shape=[1,0,0,0], grad=[[[[0.39117979]]]], ksize=[1,0,0,0], strides=[1,0,0,0], padding="SAME", data_format="NCHW")
return y
print(test())
Patches
We have patched the issue in GitHub commit 1295ae4dbb52fe06b19733b0257e2340d7b63b8d.
The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.12. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.11.1.
For more information
Please consult our security guide for more information regarding the security model and how to contact us with issues and questions.
Attribution
This vulnerability has been reported by r3pwnx of 360 AIVul Team
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "tensorflow"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "tensorflow-cpu"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "tensorflow-gpu"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-25669"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-03-24T21:56:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-25T00:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nIf the stride and window size are not positive for `tf.raw_ops.AvgPoolGrad`, it can give an FPE.\n\n```python\nimport tensorflow as tf\nimport numpy as np\n\n@tf.function(jit_compile=True)\ndef test():\n y = tf.raw_ops.AvgPoolGrad(orig_input_shape=[1,0,0,0], grad=[[[[0.39117979]]]], ksize=[1,0,0,0], strides=[1,0,0,0], padding=\"SAME\", data_format=\"NCHW\")\n return y\n\nprint(test())\n```\n\n### Patches\nWe have patched the issue in GitHub commit [1295ae4dbb52fe06b19733b0257e2340d7b63b8d](https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/commit/1295ae4dbb52fe06b19733b0257e2340d7b63b8d).\n\nThe fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.12. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.11.1.\n\n\n### For more information\nPlease consult [our security guide](https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/SECURITY.md) for more information regarding the security model and how to contact us with issues and questions.\n\n\n### Attribution\nThis vulnerability has been reported by r3pwnx of 360 AIVul Team\n",
"id": "GHSA-rcf8-g8jv-vg6p",
"modified": "2023-03-30T22:16:24Z",
"published": "2023-03-24T21:56:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/security/advisories/GHSA-rcf8-g8jv-vg6p"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25669"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/commit/1295ae4dbb52fe06b19733b0257e2340d7b63b8d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "TensorFlow has Floating Point Exception in AvgPoolGrad with XLA"
}
GHSA-RFP5-6W27-JRQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-15 01:40 – Updated: 2022-02-15 01:40A flaw was found in the psql interactive terminal of PostgreSQL in versions before 13.1, before 12.5, before 11.10, before 10.15, before 9.6.20 and before 9.5.24. If an interactive psql session uses \gset when querying a compromised server, the attacker can execute arbitrary code as the operating system account running psql. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-25696"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-183",
"CWE-270",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-11-23T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in the psql interactive terminal of PostgreSQL in versions before 13.1, before 12.5, before 11.10, before 10.15, before 9.6.20 and before 9.5.24. If an interactive psql session uses \\gset when querying a compromised server, the attacker can execute arbitrary code as the operating system account running psql. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.",
"id": "GHSA-rfp5-6w27-jrq7",
"modified": "2022-02-15T01:40:50Z",
"published": "2022-02-15T01:40:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-25696"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894430"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2020/12/msg00005.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202012-07"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/postgresql-131-125-1110-1015-9620-and-9524-released-2111"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Incorrect Comparison, Permissive List of Allowed Inputs, and Privilege Context Switching Error in PostgreSQL"
}
GHSA-RJMR-58H3-JGP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:26 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:26Google Chrome before 16.0.912.63 does not properly perform regex matching, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2011-3903"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-12-13T21:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Google Chrome before 16.0.912.63 does not properly perform regex matching, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-rjmr-58h3-jgp2",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:26:58Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:26:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-3903"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A14704"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=81753"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2011/12/stable-channel-update.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-RMVM-V6M6-87VR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-27 00:00 – Updated: 2022-01-08 00:00An issue was discovered in split_region in uc.c in Unicorn Engine before 2.0.0-rc5. It allows local attackers to escape the sandbox. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute crafted code in the target sandbox in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the virtual memory manager. The issue results from the faulty comparison of GVA and GPA while calling uc_mem_map_ptr to free part of a claimed memory block. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escape the sandbox and execute arbitrary code on the host machine.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-44078"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-26T05:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in split_region in uc.c in Unicorn Engine before 2.0.0-rc5. It allows local attackers to escape the sandbox. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute crafted code in the target sandbox in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the virtual memory manager. The issue results from the faulty comparison of GVA and GPA while calling uc_mem_map_ptr to free part of a claimed memory block. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escape the sandbox and execute arbitrary code on the host machine.",
"id": "GHSA-rmvm-v6m6-87vr",
"modified": "2022-01-08T00:00:53Z",
"published": "2021-12-27T00:00:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44078"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/unicorn-engine/unicorn/commit/c733bbada356b0373fa8aa72c044574bb855fd24"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/jwang-a/cb4b6e9551457aa299066076b836a2cd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jwang-a/CTF/blob/master/MyChallenges/Pwn/Unicorns_Aisle/UnicornsAisle.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/unicorn-engine/unicorn/compare/2.0.0-rc4...2.0.0-rc5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.unicorn-engine.org/changelog"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-RP6H-6758-G8CH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-10 06:30 – Updated: 2025-04-10 06:30The SureTriggers: All-in-One Automation Platform plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to an authentication bypass leading to administrative account creation due to a missing empty value check on the 'secret_key' value in the 'autheticate_user' function in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.78. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create administrator accounts on the target website when the plugin is installed and activated but not configured with an API key.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3102"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-10T05:15:38Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The SureTriggers: All-in-One Automation Platform plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to an authentication bypass leading to administrative account creation due to a missing empty value check on the \u0027secret_key\u0027 value in the \u0027autheticate_user\u0027 function in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.78. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create administrator accounts on the target website when the plugin is installed and activated but not configured with an API key.",
"id": "GHSA-rp6h-6758-g8ch",
"modified": "2025-04-10T06:30:23Z",
"published": "2025-04-10T06:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3102"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/suretriggers/trunk/src/Controllers/RestController.php#L59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026new=3266499%40suretriggers%2Ftrunk\u0026old=3264905%40suretriggers%2Ftrunk\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/ec017311-f150-4a14-a4b4-b5634f574e2b?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RPW4-54J3-4H4Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-28 20:43 – Updated: 2026-09-28 20:43Summary
Address6.isLinkLocal() recognizes fe80::/64 rather than fe80::/10. Link-local unicast is the whole /10 under RFC 4291 §2.4 and the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry, so the method returns false for every link-local address outside the one /64 that stateless address autoconfiguration happens to use. new Address6('fe81::1').isLinkLocal() is false.
The library contradicts itself on the same object: for fe81::1, getType() returns 'Link-local unicast', getScope() returns 'Link local', and isHostInSubnet(new Address6('fe80::/10')) returns true, while isLinkLocal() returns false.
An application that builds a network trust-boundary decision on these checks (for example a filter intended to block Server-Side Request Forgery, or SSRF) will classify a link-local target as unremarkable and allow the request. SSRF is an attack in which a user-supplied address coaxes the server into making a request to an internal destination the user could not otherwise reach.
Details
isLinkLocal() in src/ipv6.ts compares the first 64 bits of the address against a literal string:
// Zeroes are required, i.e. we can't check isHostInSubnet with 'fe80::/10'
if (
this.getBitsBase2(0, 64) ===
'1111111010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000'
) {
return true;
}
The comparison requires the first 64 bits to be exactly fe80:0000:0000:0000, so it accepts 2⁶⁴ of the 2¹¹⁸ addresses in fe80::/10. The comment states a premise the library disproves: getType() classifies the same range with isHostInSubnet against the 'fe80::/10': 'Link-local unicast' entry in src/v6/constants.ts, and Address4.isLinkLocal() is a plain isHostInSubnet test against 169.254.0.0/16. RFC 4291 §2.5.6 constrains the format of an autoconfigured link-local address; it does not define the range, and reading it as the definition is the likeliest origin of the /64 comparison.
The IPv4-mapped and NAT64 well-known paths of isLinkLocal() are unaffected: ::ffff:169.254.169.254 and 64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe are classified by their embedded IPv4 address and report true.
Affected versions
<= 10.5.0. The comparison has had this shape since Address6.isLinkLocal() was introduced, so every release exposing the method is affected.
Impact
Every well-formed address in fe80::/10 outside fe80::/64 is parsed successfully, isValid() is true, and the classifier reports something untrue about it. No other classifier catches these addresses: isPrivate() covers ULA (fc00::/7), not link-local.
| Address | isLinkLocal() |
getType() |
getScope() |
|---|---|---|---|
fe80::1 |
true |
Link-local unicast | Link local |
fe81::1 |
false |
Link-local unicast | Link local |
fe8f::1 |
false |
Link-local unicast | Link local |
febf::1 |
false |
Link-local unicast | Link local |
fe80:0:0:1::1 |
false |
Link-local unicast | Link local |
fe80::1:0:0:0:1 |
false |
Link-local unicast | Link local |
Python's ipaddress module, the IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL macro in netinet6/in6.h, and Linux's ipv6_addr_type() all apply a ten-bit prefix test and classify every row above as link-local.
A request admitted through a guard built on isLinkLocal() reaches a link-local host on the server's own segment: a neighboring machine or the on-link router. An IPv6 link-local destination generally needs a zone index and a neighbor on the same link, so the reach is the server's own segment rather than the internet or a universal metadata endpoint, and the severity reflects that.
Proof of concept
npm i ip-address@10.5.0, then:
const { Address6 } = require('ip-address');
// A guard of the shape the library documents.
function isBlocked(host) {
const a = new Address6(host);
return a.isLoopback() || a.isLinkLocal() || a.isPrivate() || a.isMulticast() || a.isUnspecified();
}
for (const h of ['fe80::1', 'fe81::1', 'febf::1', 'fe80:0:0:1::1']) {
const a = new Address6(h);
console.log(isBlocked(h) ? 'BLOCK' : 'ALLOW', h, '-> getType()', a.getType());
}
On affected versions:
BLOCK fe80::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast
ALLOW fe81::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast
ALLOW febf::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast
ALLOW fe80:0:0:1::1 -> getType() Link-local unicast
Remediation
Upgrade to the patched release. In the fix, isLinkLocal() tests the address against fe80::/10 with the same isHostInSubnet predicate getType() and Address4.isLinkLocal() use. The same release adds 2001::/32 to the type table so getType() reports 'Teredo' for the addresses isTeredo() returns true for; that is a consistency correction with no security effect.
If you cannot upgrade immediately, test the range directly:
const LINK_LOCAL = new Address6('fe80::/10');
const linkLocal = new Address6(host).isHostInSubnet(LINK_LOCAL);
A note on SSRF defense
These methods are address classifiers, not a complete SSRF defense. Regardless of this fix, a robust SSRF guard must resolve the hostname and validate the resolved IP against the socket it connects to, and account for DNS rebinding and redirects. Treat these checks as one layer, not the only one.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 10.5.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "ip-address"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "10.5.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-101913"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-28T20:43:55Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-28T18:17:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\n`Address6.isLinkLocal()` recognizes `fe80::/64` rather than `fe80::/10`. Link-local unicast is the whole `/10` under RFC 4291 \u00a72.4 and the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry, so the method returns `false` for every link-local address outside the one `/64` that stateless address autoconfiguration happens to use. `new Address6(\u0027fe81::1\u0027).isLinkLocal()` is `false`.\n\nThe library contradicts itself on the same object: for `fe81::1`, `getType()` returns `\u0027Link-local unicast\u0027`, `getScope()` returns `\u0027Link local\u0027`, and `isHostInSubnet(new Address6(\u0027fe80::/10\u0027))` returns `true`, while `isLinkLocal()` returns `false`.\n\nAn application that builds a network trust-boundary decision on these checks (for example a filter intended to block Server-Side Request Forgery, or SSRF) will classify a link-local target as unremarkable and allow the request. SSRF is an attack in which a user-supplied address coaxes the server into making a request to an internal destination the user could not otherwise reach.\n\n### Details\n\n`isLinkLocal()` in `src/ipv6.ts` compares the first 64 bits of the address against a literal string:\n\n```ts\n// Zeroes are required, i.e. we can\u0027t check isHostInSubnet with \u0027fe80::/10\u0027\nif (\n this.getBitsBase2(0, 64) ===\n \u00271111111010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\u0027\n) {\n return true;\n}\n```\n\nThe comparison requires the first 64 bits to be exactly `fe80:0000:0000:0000`, so it accepts 2\u2076\u2074 of the 2\u00b9\u00b9\u2078 addresses in `fe80::/10`. The comment states a premise the library disproves: `getType()` classifies the same range with `isHostInSubnet` against the `\u0027fe80::/10\u0027: \u0027Link-local unicast\u0027` entry in `src/v6/constants.ts`, and `Address4.isLinkLocal()` is a plain `isHostInSubnet` test against `169.254.0.0/16`. RFC 4291 \u00a72.5.6 constrains the format of an autoconfigured link-local address; it does not define the range, and reading it as the definition is the likeliest origin of the `/64` comparison.\n\nThe IPv4-mapped and NAT64 well-known paths of `isLinkLocal()` are unaffected: `::ffff:169.254.169.254` and `64:ff9b::a9fe:a9fe` are classified by their embedded IPv4 address and report `true`.\n\n### Affected versions\n\n`\u003c= 10.5.0`. The comparison has had this shape since `Address6.isLinkLocal()` was introduced, so every release exposing the method is affected.\n\n### Impact\n\nEvery well-formed address in `fe80::/10` outside `fe80::/64` is parsed successfully, `isValid()` is `true`, and the classifier reports something untrue about it. No other classifier catches these addresses: `isPrivate()` covers ULA (`fc00::/7`), not link-local.\n\n| Address | `isLinkLocal()` | `getType()` | `getScope()` |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `fe80::1` | `true` | Link-local unicast | Link local |\n| `fe81::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local |\n| `fe8f::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local |\n| `febf::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local |\n| `fe80:0:0:1::1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local |\n| `fe80::1:0:0:0:1` | `false` | Link-local unicast | Link local |\n\nPython\u0027s `ipaddress` module, the `IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL` macro in `netinet6/in6.h`, and Linux\u0027s `ipv6_addr_type()` all apply a ten-bit prefix test and classify every row above as link-local.\n\nA request admitted through a guard built on `isLinkLocal()` reaches a link-local host on the server\u0027s own segment: a neighboring machine or the on-link router. An IPv6 link-local destination generally needs a zone index and a neighbor on the same link, so the reach is the server\u0027s own segment rather than the internet or a universal metadata endpoint, and the severity reflects that.\n\n### Proof of concept\n\n`npm i ip-address@10.5.0`, then:\n\n```js\nconst { Address6 } = require(\u0027ip-address\u0027);\n\n// A guard of the shape the library documents.\nfunction isBlocked(host) {\n const a = new Address6(host);\n return a.isLoopback() || a.isLinkLocal() || a.isPrivate() || a.isMulticast() || a.isUnspecified();\n}\n\nfor (const h of [\u0027fe80::1\u0027, \u0027fe81::1\u0027, \u0027febf::1\u0027, \u0027fe80:0:0:1::1\u0027]) {\n const a = new Address6(h);\n console.log(isBlocked(h) ? \u0027BLOCK\u0027 : \u0027ALLOW\u0027, h, \u0027-\u003e getType()\u0027, a.getType());\n}\n```\n\nOn affected versions:\n\n```\nBLOCK fe80::1 -\u003e getType() Link-local unicast\nALLOW fe81::1 -\u003e getType() Link-local unicast\nALLOW febf::1 -\u003e getType() Link-local unicast\nALLOW fe80:0:0:1::1 -\u003e getType() Link-local unicast\n```\n\n### Remediation\n\nUpgrade to the patched release. In the fix, `isLinkLocal()` tests the address against `fe80::/10` with the same `isHostInSubnet` predicate `getType()` and `Address4.isLinkLocal()` use. The same release adds `2001::/32` to the type table so `getType()` reports `\u0027Teredo\u0027` for the addresses `isTeredo()` returns `true` for; that is a consistency correction with no security effect.\n\nIf you cannot upgrade immediately, test the range directly:\n\n```js\nconst LINK_LOCAL = new Address6(\u0027fe80::/10\u0027);\nconst linkLocal = new Address6(host).isHostInSubnet(LINK_LOCAL);\n```\n\n### A note on SSRF defense\n\nThese methods are address classifiers, not a complete SSRF defense. Regardless of this fix, a robust SSRF guard must resolve the hostname and validate the *resolved* IP against the socket it connects to, and account for DNS rebinding and redirects. Treat these checks as one layer, not the only one.",
"id": "GHSA-rpw4-54j3-4h4q",
"modified": "2026-09-28T20:43:55Z",
"published": "2026-09-28T20:43:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beaugunderson/ip-address/security/advisories/GHSA-rpw4-54j3-4h4q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-101913"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beaugunderson/ip-address/commit/d03e960c7cc3179ef25c8a44b4f94dd499625546"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/beaugunderson/ip-address"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beaugunderson/ip-address/releases/tag/v10.5.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "ip-address: Address6.isLinkLocal() recognizes fe80::/64 rather than fe80::/10, allowing SSRF and trust-boundary bypass to on-link hosts"
}
GHSA-RQ53-M697-2MF8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-16 21:32 – Updated: 2026-09-16 21:32As part of Cisco's ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, the Cisco Secure Adaptive Security Appliance Software, Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense Software and Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Software engineering team has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in a software hardening release that addresses multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities.
The vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-20333 are related to incorrect comparison conditions that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Pillar CWE-697.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-20333"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-16T21:17:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "As part of Cisco\u0027s ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, the Cisco Secure Adaptive Security Appliance Software, Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense Software and Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Software engineering team has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in a software hardening release that addresses multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities.\n\nThe vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-20333 are related to incorrect comparison conditions that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Pillar CWE-697.",
"id": "GHSA-rq53-m697-2mf8",
"modified": "2026-09-16T21:32:50Z",
"published": "2026-09-16T21:32:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-20333"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-hardening-asaftdfmc-uvpPROhN"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RRCV-RXHJ-PJH8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-26 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:21The SolarWinds Platform was susceptible to the Incorrect Comparison Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows users with administrative access to SolarWinds Web Console to execute arbitrary commands with SYSTEM privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-23844"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-184",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-26T14:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The SolarWinds Platform was susceptible to the Incorrect Comparison Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows users with administrative access to SolarWinds Web Console to execute arbitrary commands with SYSTEM privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-rrcv-rxhj-pjh8",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:21:58Z",
"published": "2023-07-26T15:30:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.solarwinds.com/en/success_center/orionplatform/content/release_notes/solarwinds_platform_2023-3_release_notes.htm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.solarwinds.com/trust-center/security-advisories/CVE-2023-23844"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.