#cwe-682

共收录 11 条相关安全情报。

← 返回所有主题
CVE-2026-10773

The DHCPv4 client helper net_dhcpv4_msg_type_name() in subsys/net/lib/dhcpv4/dhcpv4.c indexes a static 8-element const char * name table after a faulty bounds check. The guard used msg_type <= sizeof(name) instead of msg_type <= ARRAY_SIZE(name); sizeof returns the byte size of the pointer array (32 on 32-bit, 64 on 64-bit targets) rather than the element count of 8, so message-type values from 9

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2026-47247

libheif is a HEIF and AVIF file format decoder and encoder. Prior to version 1.22.0, two bugs in libheif chain to leak process heap memory as visible pixel values in decoded grid images. An attacker who uploads a crafted AVIF/HEIC file to any server-side image processor (WordPress, Sharp/libvips, ImageMagick, etc.) can recover heap data - including library function pointers sufficient to defeat AS

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)

libheif is a HEIF and AVIF file format decoder and encoder. Prior to version 1.22.0, two bugs in libheif chain to leak process heap memory as visible pixel values in decoded grid images. An attacker who uploads a crafted AVIF/HEIC file to any server-side image processor (WordPress, Sharp/libvips, ImageMagick, etc.) can recover heap data - including library function pointers sufficient to defeat AS

💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Primary 数据源 (+3) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2026-55597

ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to version 7.1.2-26, an incorrect handling of arguments can cause a heap buffer over-write in the JP2 encoder. This issue has been fixed in version7.1.2-26.

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2026-10512

The X25519 x86_64 assembly implementation fails to clear the most significant bit during the final modular reduction, so the computed result may not be fully reduced modulo the field prime 2^255 - 19. This can leave the field element in a non-canonical form, producing an incorrect result from the scalar multiplication and potentially a wrong shared secret. The final carry-propagation chains in the

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2026-44074

Netatalk 2.1.0 through 4.4.2 combines multiple errno values using bitwise OR, resulting in incorrect error codes when multiple error conditions occur simultaneously, which may allow a remote attacker to cause a minor service disruption via conditions that trigger incorrect error-handling paths.

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2026-7836

An incorrect calculation in the hextoint macro in Netatalk 2.0.0 through 4.4.2 due to improper uppercase character handling allows a remote authenticated attacker to cause limited data modification via crafted hexadecimal input.

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)

Ledger Bitcoin app versions 2.1.0 and 2.1.1 contain an address derivation vulnerability that allows attackers to cause incorrect Bitcoin addresses to be displayed by exploiting improper handling of miniscript policies containing the a: fragment. Attackers can craft malicious miniscript policies that cause the device to derive and display incorrect receiving addresses, potentially leading to funds

💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | 影响边界/网络设备 (+5) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2023-7346

Ledger Bitcoin app versions 2.1.0 and 2.1.1 contain an address derivation vulnerability that allows attackers to cause incorrect Bitcoin addresses to be displayed by exploiting improper handling of miniscript policies containing the a: fragment. Attackers can craft malicious miniscript policies that cause the device to derive and display incorrect receiving addresses, potentially leading to funds

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: 影响边界/网络设备 (+5) | Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
CVE-2026-44498

ZEBRA is a Zcash node written entirely in Rust. Prior to version 4.4.0, Zebra's block validator undercounts transparent signature operations against the 20000-sigop block limit (MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS), allowing it to accept blocks that zcashd rejects with bad-blk-sigops. A miner who produces such a block can split the network: Zebra nodes follow the offending chain while zcashd nodes do not. This issue

💡 影响/原因: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: Primary 数据源 (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
zebrad

Zebra's block validator undercounts transparent signature operations against the 20000-sigop block limit (`MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS`), allowing it to accept blocks that `zcashd` rejects with `bad-blk-sigops`. A miner who produces such a block can split the network: Zebra nodes follow the offending chain while `zcashd` nodes do not. Two distinct undercounts: #### A: Coinbase Hidden Legacy Sigops `zcashd

💡 风险点: 原文内容(由于配额限制,未进行深度 LLM 分析)

🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估

排序因子: 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)