Threats Tagged 'cwe-704'

The User Profile Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authentication Bypass via Type Confusion in versions up to, and including, 3.16.4. This is due to the wppb_log_in_user() function calling absint() on the return value of wp_insert_user() before performing an is_wp_error() check — when a registration is submitted with a 61–70 character username, WordPress core rejects it with a WP_Error object, but absint() coerces that object to the integer 1 before the error check can short-circuit execution, causing the plugin to bind and return a transient-backed autologin nonce tied to user ID 1. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to log in as the site's Administrator account (user ID 1), resulting in full administrative takeover of the site.

The User Profile Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authentication Bypass via Type Confusion in versions up to, and including, 3.16.4. This is due to the wppb_log_in_user() function calling absint() on the return value of wp_insert_user() before performing an is_wp_error() check — when a registration is submitted with a 61–70 character username, WordPress core rejects it with a WP_Error object, but absint() coerces that object to the integer 1 before the error check can short-circuit execution, causing the plugin to bind and return a transient-backed autologin nonce tied to user ID 1. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to log in as the site's Administrator account (user ID 1), resulting in full administrative takeover of the site.

rsync before 3.5.0 contains a privilege confusion vulnerability in the name-converter subprocess uid/gid mapping that allows local attackers to cause transferred files to be owned by root by influencing name-converter responses to return empty values. When the name-converter subprocess returns an empty response for a uid or gid lookup, rsync incorrectly interprets it as a successful resolution to uid/gid 0 (root) rather than a lookup failure, and if the name-converter also signals fake super-user status, rsync proceeds with root ownership assignments for transferred files.

Russh is a Rust SSH client & server library. Prior to 0.62.4, a malicious SSH server can crash a russh client session with a malformed KEX_ECDH_REPLY containing a server ephemeral value that is not 32 bytes long. The client-side Curve25519Kex::compute_shared_secret function in russh/src/kex/curve25519.rs passes the decoded exchange.server_ephemeral value to clone_from_slice without validating its length, causing a deterministic panic before the server host key is verified. The panic terminates the spawned client session task and surfaces as a JoinError, while the embedding process normally remains running. This issue is fixed in version 0.62.4.

The dataplane token validator in kuma-cp performs an unchecked Go type assertion on the JWT kid header. A token whose kid is a JSON number decodes as a float64 and triggers a runtime panic before any signature, claims, or authorization check runs. The panic terminates the entire kuma-cp process, HTTP API, the health and readiness endpoints, and xDS. Unauthenticated access to the dataplane gRPC server can trigger the crash with a malformed token A single request is a transient interruption; sustaining an outage requires repeated requests.

Two vulnerabilities have been identified in the TPM 2.0 reference implementation: an information leakage vulnerability (CVE-2026-6726) allowing privileged local attackers to obtain credentials for falsified TPM keys, and a timing side-channel vulnerability (CVE-2026-6727) in RSA OAEP decryption that could enable decryption of ciphertexts encrypted to TPM-managed RSA keys. Exploitation requires privileged local access to the TPM command interface. Successful attacks could lead to forged TPM attestations and decryption of sensitive data. Multiple vendors have released firmware and software updates incorporating fixes. Users should apply these updates as provided by their platform or TPM vendor. Cloud providers using software TPMs may have also deployed patches and customers should consult their providers. The overall impact depends on the TPM implementation and usage context.