UBUNTU-CVE-2023-0547

OCSP revocation status of recipient certificates was not checked when sending S/Mime encrypted email, and revoked certificates would be accepted. Thunderbird versions from 68 to 102.9.1 were affected by this bug. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird 102.10...

ETHCrowdfundBase.sol: all funds are lost when fee recipient cannot receive ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the ETHCrowdfundBase contract a fundingSplitRecipient address is configured which receives a percentage of the funds in case the crowdfund is won. Neither the fundingSplitRecipient address nor the fundingSplitBps percentage can be changed. The issue i...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #60 [1679803335439]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 60 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: LiquidityPool.sol: If the fee recipient is not set then all LP operations such as deposits and withdrawals will fail. Consider making fee transfers optional depending on whether a fee recipient and percentage is set -...

set critical parameters like fee recipient in constrctor.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Loss of fee at certain condition. This can happen, when user call deposit function immediately contracts are deployed. Or when admin forget to update the feeReceient address. There are lot of address that admin has to set once the contract is deployed. S...

Potential Risk of Accidentally Minting Tokens to Incorrect Accounts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 1. the Intended recipient of the tokens might not receive them, which could lead to a loss of funds or a delay in the intended use of the tokens 2. incorrect account holder could receive the tokens by mistake, leading to a discrepancy in the total token...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #523 [1677626174331]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 523 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Title Add function for feeRecipient change in MultiRewardEscrow.sol contract Links to affected code Vulnerability details Impact If account feeRecipient would be compromised, or the protocol owner wants from some oth...

SUSE CVE-2007-4560

clamav-milter in ClamAV before 0.91.2, when run in black hole mode, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters that are used in a certain popen call, involving the "recipient field of sendmail."...

SUSE CVE-2013-4166

The gpgctxaddrecipient function in camel/camel-gpg-context.c in GNOME Evolution 3.8.4 and earlier and Evolution Data Server 3.9.5 and earlier does not properly select the GPG key to use for email encryption, which might cause the email to be encrypted with the wrong key and allow remote attackers...

SUSE CVE-2014-1571

Bugzilla 2.x through 4.0.x before 4.0.15, 4.1.x and 4.2.x before 4.2.11, 4.3.x and 4.4.x before 4.4.6, and 4.5.x before 4.5.6 allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive private-comment information by leveraging a role as a flag recipient, related to Bug.pm, Flag.pm, and a mail template...

SUSE CVE-2019-10149

A flaw was found in Exim versions 4.87 to 4.91 inclusive. Improper validation of recipient address in delivermessage function in /src/deliver.c may lead to remote command execution...

SUSE CVE-2020-8122

A missing check in Nextcloud Server 14.0.3 could give recipient the possibility to extend the expiration date of a share they received...

SUSE CVE-2020-28017

Exim 4 before 4.94.2 allows Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow in receiveaddrecipient via an e-mail message with fifty million recipients. NOTE: remote exploitation may be difficult because of resource consumption...

SUSE CVE-2020-28022

Exim 4 before 4.94.2 has Improper Restriction of Write Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer. This occurs when processing name=value pairs within MAIL FROM and RCPT TO commands...

DEBIAN-CVE-2023-0215

The public API function BIOnewNDEF is a helper function used for streaming ASN.1 data via a BIO. It is primarily used internally to OpenSSL to support the SMIME, CMS and PKCS7 streaming capabilities, but may also be called directly by end user applications. The function receives a BIO from the...

Malicious user can send the quest reward tokens to the protocol fee contract preventing users from claiming their rewards.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious user can take advantage of the function withdrawFee after the quest end time and successfuly send the quest reward tokens to the protocol fee contract preventing users from claiming their rewards. Proof of Concept Every receipt minted should...

withdrawFee should only be allowed to called once.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current implementation, the function withdrawFee can be called multiple times. It should only be allowed to called once. Calling more than once would let owner steal from legit users as there won’t be enough funds left for legit users to claim...

PT-2023-14816 · Discourse · Discourse

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: Discourse versions prior to 2.8.14 on the stable branch and version 2.9.0.beta15 on the beta and tests-passed branches Description: Discourse is an open-source discussion platform. Prior to the specified versions, recipients of a group SMTP...

function buyAndReduceDebt() spend more underlying token than user specified and also code doesn't check that swapFeeBips is less than BIPS_ONE and user can lose some of his underlying token balance that he gave protocol spending approval

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact user can specify fee recipient and fee amount to send to that recipient and it is calculated by amount swapFeeBips / BIPSONE but there is no check in the code to make sure swapFeeBips is less than BIPSONE and if user set wrong value by mistake or client...

winnerClaimNFT() does not check if recipient can receive ERC721

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In src\VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol winnerClaimNFT, you should use safeTransferFrom to protect against the case that the recipient cannot receive the ERC721 tokens, and thus will lose the tokens. This is more-so the case when we expect that normal users will be...

Wrong variable is used for the first parameter of depositHook.hook()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Recipient is treated wrongly as sender. Proof of Concept As written here See DepositHook.solL43-L52, the first accepted parameter should be the sender. However, recipient See Collateral.solL53 is passed in here. Tools Used Manual Recommended Mitigation...