#go

共收录 473 条相关安全情报。

← 返回所有主题
github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser/backend

### Summary The `subtitlesHandler` endpoint (`GET /api/media/subtitles`) accepts two user-controlled query parameters: `path` and `name`, both of which are used in filesystem operations without sanitization, creating two independent path traversal vectors. The primary vector is the `path` parameter: it is passed directly to `idx.GetRealPath()` without calling `SanitizeUserPath()`, allowing an at

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/pion/dtls/v3

### Impact Remote denial of service via panic while parsing a crafted ECDHE_PSK ServerKeyExchange message. ### Patches Upgrade to v3.1.4 or later. This version includes this patch https://github.com/pion/dtls/pull/839 which fixes the issue. ### Workarounds No work around; please upgrade to v3.1.4 or a newer version.

💡 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)
github.com/pion/stun/v3, github.com/pion/stun/v2, github.com/pion/stun

### Impact Remote denial of service via panic while parsing a malformed XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute ### Patches Upgrade to v3.1.5 or later. This version includes this patch https://github.com/pion/stun/pull/278 which fixes the issue. ### Workarounds No work around; please upgrade to v3.1.5 or a newer version.

💡 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)
github.com/sigstore/sigstore-go

sigstore-go fails to check signature timestamps against a signing key's validity period for self-managed long-lived keys without certificates. ## Impact To verify a bundle with a self-managed long-lived key, the key needs to be wrapped in an `ExpiringKey` type that implies expiration semantics: ```go signatureVerifier, _ := signature.LoadDefaultVerifier(publicKey) expiredKey := root.NewExpiring

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/free5gc, github.com/free5gc/ausf

### Summary The free5GC AUSF (Authentication Server Function) does not validate the `supiOrSuci` field in UE authentication requests. Null bytes (`\x00`) and other control characters pass through JSON parsing unchanged and are forwarded to the UDM in an unescaped URL path. This causes Go's `net/url.Parse()` to fail, returning HTTP 500 "System failure" and leaking internal stack traces. An unauthe

💡 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)
github.com/bank-vaults/vault-secrets-webhook

## Summary The vault-secrets-webhook reads the `vault.security.banzaicloud.io/vault-addr` annotation from any ConfigMap or Secret being admitted and uses it as the Vault server address without any validation or allowlist. When a ConfigMap or Secret contains a value prefixed with `vault:`, the webhook's admission handler synchronously calls the Vault API at the attacker-supplied address from insid

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/projectcapsule/capsule

### Summary CVE-2026-22872 (GHSA-qjjm-7j9w-pw72) reported that a Tenant Owner could create cluster-scoped resources (e.g. `ClusterRole`, `ValidatingWebhookConfiguration`) through a `TenantResource`, because the controller applies them with its cluster-admin ServiceAccount and `SetNamespace` is ineffective for cluster-scoped kinds. The v0.13.0 fix added a cluster-scope rejection guard, but **only o

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/projectcapsule/capsule

### Summary `CapsuleConfiguration.Spec.NodeMetadata.ForbiddenLabels.Regex` and `ForbiddenAnnotations.Regex` are never validated by any admission webhook. A Cluster Admin can persist a malformed regex to etcd without being blocked. Once stored, every Node `CREATE`, `UPDATE`, or `PATCH` request triggers `regexp.MustCompile()` in `pkg/api/forbidden_list.go:36`, which **panics** and crashes the node

💡 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)
github.com/pterodactyl/wings

### Summary A maliciously crafted packet received & parsed during the SFTP connection handshake will cause a Go panic. ### Impact All wings users with an open SFTP port. ### Workarounds Close SFTP port.

💡 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)
github.com/pterodactyl/wings

### Impact **Type:** Exposure of sensitive information / insufficiently protected credentials leading to privilege escalation and full node compromise. Wings exposes its **entire** daemon configuration to the egg configuration-file templating engine. When Wings renders a server's configuration files, any `{{config.}}` placeholder in a replacement value is resolved against the full marshalled dae

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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)
github.com/pterodactyl/wings

### Summary Config file parsers, `json`, `yaml`, `xml` etc in parser.go have no file size limit/checks, allowing for a giant config file to potentially OOM the wings process. ### Impact All wings users who have an egg with a non-`file` parser configuration file setting.

💡 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)
推荐 14.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/tinfoil-factory/netfoil

### Summary `0.0.0.0` was used instead of NXDOMAIN for block responses. On Linux, which is the target platform for netfoil, the `0.0.0.0` is sent to localhost rather than just dropped. ### Impact Unintended traffic could be sent to localhost. Impact depends on running services and firewall rules.

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kube-logging/logging-operator

### Summary The Fluentd configuration renderer in Logging operator writes strings from CRDs such as `Flow` directly into `fluent.conf` without escaping them. As a result, a user who can create `Flow` resources can inject Fluentd configuration by providing values that contain newlines. In the confirmed path, a value in `record_transformer.records` can close the current `` / `` block and add a new

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/zitadel/zitadel

### Summary A vulnerability in Zitadel's self-management capability allowed users to mark their email and phone as verified without going through an actual verification process. While [`GHSA-282g-fhmx-xf54`](https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/security/advisories/GHSA-282g-fhmx-xf54) (CVE-2026-27946, "Users Can Self-Verify Email/Phone via UpdateHumanUser API") closed the path that let any authent

💡 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)
github.com/prebid/prebid-server/v4, github.com/prebid/prebid-server/v3, github.com/prebid/prebid-server/v2, github.com/prebid/prebid-server

### Impact Certain bidder adapters accept user-supplied parameters that are interpolated into outbound request URLs. Without proper input validation, a malicious actor could craft bid request parameters that cause the server to send HTTP requests to unintended destinations, potentially exposing internal network services or sensitive server endpoints to unauthorized access. ### Patches Patched in

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/patrickhener/goshs/v2, goshs.de/goshs/v2, github.com/patrickhener/goshs, goshs.de/goshs

## Summary `sendFile` derives the served filename from the raw request path while opening the file from the cleaned path, so appending a trailing slash empties the derived name and defeats both the never-serve rule for the ACL file and the block list. ## Finding (Medium): trailing-slash ACL and hidden-file bypass httpserver/handler.go, sendFile (lines 789-801) takes the filename from the RAW r

💡 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)
github.com/bablilayoub/openhole

## Summary openhole-server forwarded the URL-decoded request path (`r.URL.Path`) to tunnel clients instead of the original request-target. Percent-encoded dot-segments (`%2e`) and separators (`%2f`) were decoded to `../` and `/` before reaching the local service. Go's ServeMux rejects literal `../` paths, but percent-encoded traversal sequences bypassed this and were delivered to backends as wor

💡 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)
github.com/gotd/td

### Impact A remote, unauthenticated attacker can cause excessive memory allocation (and resulting CPU / GC pressure, potentially OOM termination) by sending a crafted unencrypted MTProto packet. `(*proto.UnencryptedMessage).Decode` read an attacker-controlled 32-bit `dataLen` field and immediately allocated a buffer of that size via `make([]byte, dataLen)` **before** validating that the underly

💡 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)
INFO
ADVISORY 2026-07-28

goshs has a Path Traversal issue

推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
goshs.de/goshs/v2, github.com/patrickhener/goshs/v2, goshs.de/goshs, github.com/patrickhener/goshs

## Summary The multipart upload filename fix splits on the path separator but never rejects dot-dot, allowing a write outside the served tree. ## Finding (Medium): upload filename escapes the served tree (residual of CVE-2026-35393) The multipart filename fix (updown.go lines 135-136) splits on the path separator but never rejects "..". Uploading with filename=".." results in os.Create against

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
goshs.de/goshs/v2, github.com/patrickhener/goshs/v2, goshs.de/goshs, github.com/patrickhener/goshs

## Summary The WebDAV mode-flag guard added to fix GHSA-3whc-qvhv-xqjp still does not enforce `--no-delete` on the WebDAV `MOVE` verb. `MOVE` deletes the source file (rename removes it from its original path), and with `Overwrite: T` it additionally performs an explicit `RemoveAll` on the destination. Under `-w --no-delete`, `DELETE` is correctly blocked (403) but `MOVE` still destroys existing f

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
github.com/patrickhener/goshs, github.com/patrickhener/goshs/v2, goshs.de/goshs, goshs.de/goshs/v2

GHSA-wvhv-qcqf-f3cx fixed the per-folder .goshs ACL bypass on the state-changing routes (PUT/POST upload/?mkdir/?delete) and added recursive ACL resolution, and its description states the read/list path correctly enforces .goshs. That premise does not hold for the ?bulk zip-download route. bulkDownload (httpserver/updown.go) takes one or more ?file= parameters, runs each through sanitizePath(fs.We

💡 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)
github.com/patrickhener/goshs/v2, goshs.de/goshs/v2

## Summary Start goshs v2.1.3 with `-b 'admin:' -sftp`. No `-fkf`. SFTP accepts connections without password. CVE-2026-40884 blocks the empty-username variant (`-b ':pass'`). The empty-password variant bypasses that fix. ## CVE-2026-40884 **CVE-2026-40884** (GHSA-c29w-qq4m-2gcv, Apr 13 2026) reported the empty-username case: `-b ':pass'` with `-sftp`. `sftpserver.go:85` uses `&&`: ```go if s.U

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
github.com/azukaar/cosmos-server

### Summary The Constellation-tunnel bypass branch in `tokenMiddleware` at `src/proxy/routerGen.go:53-66` returns to the upstream handler before the request's `x-cosmos-user`, `x-cosmos-role`, `x-cosmos-user-role`, and `x-cosmos-mfa` headers are stripped at lines 68-72, and before the `AdminOnlyWithRedirect` gate at lines 109-117 runs. Any holder of a valid Constellation device API key sends `x-c

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/azukaar/cosmos-server

### Summary `GET /cosmos/api/constellation/public-devices` discloses Constellation device metadata to a requester that supplies any non-empty `Authorization` header. The handler strips the string `Bearer ` from the header but never validates the resulting token and never uses it in the database query. This was confirmed locally by routing a request through the real `tokenMiddleware` with `Authori

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/fission/fission

`SanitizeFilePath` in `pkg/utils/utils.go` validated that a path stayed under a safe directory by calling `strings.HasPrefix(path, safedir)`. This is a lexical check, not a directory boundary check: `/packages-extra/evil` starts with `/packages`, so it passed. The function did not enforce a path-separator boundary, so any sibling directory whose name began with the safe-directory string was accept

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

`Unarchive` in `pkg/utils/zip.go` joined each archive entry name with the destination directory via `filepath.Join` and wrote the result without checking whether the resolved path stayed under the destination. A zip entry named `../../tmp/evil` therefore landed at `/tmp/evil`. An attacker who could control a `Package.Spec.Source.URL` or `Deployment.URL` archive could induce the fetcher (running

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

`HTTPTriggerSpec.Validate()` validated `Methods`, `FunctionReference`, `Host`, `IngressConfig`, and `CorsConfig`, but silently skipped `RelativeURL` and `Prefix`. Those two fields were validated at the CLI level only (`pkg/fission-cli/cmd/httptrigger/create.go:83`). The post-CRD-modernization webhook for HTTPTrigger was retired in favor of API-server CEL — and CEL had no rules on those fields eith

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

Fission v1.24.0 added PodSpec safety validation for tenant-facing Environment and Function CRDs (`ValidatePodSpecSafety` / `ValidateContainerSafety` admission webhook + `sanitizeContainerSecurityContext` executor merge layer), but the capability check was implemented as a fixed **denylist of six Linux capabilities** (SYS_ADMIN, NET_ADMIN, SYS_PTRACE, SYS_MODULE, DAC_READ_SEARCH, DAC_OVERRIDE). The

💡 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)
go.etcd.io/etcd/v3

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ A network attacker who can reach an etcd TLS listener can open many TCP connections and never send a ClientHello. Each connection spawns a goroutine in the etcd server process that blocks indefinitely inside tls.Conn.Handshake(), and each is tracked in the pending map. Unbounded goroutine and map growth exhausts memory in the etcd pr

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/getkin/kin-openapi

| Field | Value | |---|---| | Ecosystem | Go | | Package | `github.com/getkin/kin-openapi` | | Affected versions | `<= 0.143.0` (introduced in `v0.2.0`, PR #90, 2019-05-07; reproduced on `HEAD` `30e2923`) | | Patched versions | 0.144.0 | --- ### Summary `openapi3filter.ValidateRequest` contains a NULL-pointer-dereference denial of service: any **unauthenticated** client can crash the request-val

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 14.4
Conf: 50%
go.etcd.io/etcd/v3

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ A user granted READ permission on a single, exact key can use the Watch gRPC API with `clientv3.WithFromKey()` (an open-ended, "from this key to the end of the keyspace" watch) to receive watch events for every key lexicographically greater than or equal to their permitted key — not just the one key they were granted. This is an au

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/jandedobbeleer/oh-my-posh

### Summary Oh My Posh re-renders the resolved path string, which contains the raw folder names taken from the filesystem, through the Go `text/template` engine. That engine's function map exposes a `cmd` function that runs arbitrary OS commands. A directory whose name contains a Go template expression is therefore evaluated when the prompt renders, giving arbitrary command execution as the curren

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/jandedobbeleer/oh-my-posh

### Summary Oh My Posh renders dynamic, potentially attacker-controlled strings (the current directory name, Git commit metadata, environment variable values, command output) into the prompt without neutralizing raw terminal control characters. An attacker who controls one of these values can inject ANSI/OSC escape sequences that the victim's terminal executes on every prompt render. (This is sepa

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/OpenListTeam/OpenList/v4

### Summary An authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the file sharing mechanism of `Openlist`. Due to a flawed, non-separator-aware path validation check, an authenticated user can create share links for files outside their restricted base directory. This allows an attacker to bypass tenant/user isolation and gain unauthorized read access to arbitrary files within the system. ### Details W

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/OpenListTeam/OpenList/v4

### Summary An authorization bypass and information disclosure vulnerability exists in the search API of `Openlist`. Due to a non-separator-aware path check and unfiltered backend counting, a low-privileged user can bypass their assigned `BasePath` restrictions to discover and access metadata of files residing in unauthorized sibling directories. ### Details This vulnerability stems from two comb

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/OpenListTeam/OpenList/v4

### Summary The `/api/fs/batch_rename` handler validates and authorizes only the requested source directory. It rejects path separators in `new_name`, but it does not validate `src_name`. The handler concatenates `src_dir` and attacker-controlled `src_name`, then passes the result to the filesystem rename layer, where the path is normalized. An authenticated user with rename permission can set `

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary Cloudreve exposes two admin node test endpoints under the `Admin.Read` OAuth scope. These endpoints accept attacker-controlled node definitions and cause Cloudreve to make outbound server-side network requests. This allows an OAuth client authorized only for `Admin.Read` to trigger operational network actions that should require `Admin.Write`. ## Impact An attacker who obtains an adm

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/fatedier/frp

## Summary An integer-overflow vulnerability in the frp server's optional SSH Tunnel Gateway lets any unauthenticated remote attacker crash the entire `frps` process with a single five-byte message. When the gateway parses an SSH `exec` channel request in `pkg/ssh/server.go`, it adds a small constant to a four-byte length value taken directly from the request. Because that length is fully attacke

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/zxh326/kite

## Summary Kite versions 0.6.9 through 0.14.0 authorize Kubernetes proxy requests against the pod or service identified by the original route parameters. Encoded path traversal segments can cause the upstream URL to resolve to a different Kubernetes API endpoint after authorization. ## Impact An authenticated user with `get` permission on pods or services in one namespace can cause Kite to issu

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary Cloudreve WOPI access tokens are generated as `.`, but the WOPI middleware validates only the session id prefix and never compares the supplied token to the stored token. In addition, a WOPI viewer session does not store or enforce the requested viewer action. A session created for a view or preview action can still call WOPI write routes if the underlying file is writable by the sessi

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/quic-go/webtransport-go

## Summary An attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in webtransport-go by sending an unknown WebTransport capsule with a large payload. The implementation skips unknown capsules by reading the entire capsule body into memory, instead of draining it without retaining the data. This can lead to memory exhaustion. ## Impact A misbehaving or malicious peer can cause a denial-of-service (Do

💡 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)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary Cloudreve 4.16.1 has an OAuth scope authorization bypass in the admin storage policy routes. An OAuth bearer token scoped to `Admin.Read` but not `Admin.Write` can call `POST /api/v4/admin/policy/oauth/signin` and update OneDrive storage policy credentials. The route is inside the admin group that requires `Admin.Read`, but it does not add the local `Admin.Write` guard used by sibling

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary When an authenticated recipient of a **single-file** share opens the file event stream (`GET /api/v4/file/events?uri=`), Cloudreve validates the URI by listing it and then subscribes the caller to `parent.ID()`. For a single-file share, the share navigator resolves the bare share-root URI to the **owner-side parent folder** of the shared file (not the file), while the visible listing

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary Cloudreve's built-in image processor decodes user-supplied images with Go's standard-library decoders (`image/png`, `image/jpeg`, `image/gif`) and guards **only the compressed file size** — never the *decoded* pixel dimensions. Go's decoders allocate a pixel buffer sized `bytesPerPixel × width × height` taken straight from the image header (e.g. a PNG's IHDR), with no upper bound on `w

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary `GET /api/v4/user/search` is available to any logged-in user. The service calls `userClient.SearchActive`, but despite its name that method filters only by email/nickname keyword and **never adds a `StatusActive` predicate** — while the sibling lookups `GetActiveByID` and `GetActiveByDavAccount`, defined a few lines above it, do. Search hits are serialized at `RedactLevelUser`, which

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v4, github.com/cloudreve/Cloudreve/v3

## Summary Cloudreve's WOPI `PUT_RELATIVE` handler treats `X-WOPI-SuggestedTarget` as a path, not a filename. It splits the header on `/` and joins the segments onto the source file's directory with `URI.JoinRaw`, which feeds Go's `url.JoinPath`. `url.JoinPath` resolves `.`/`..` segments, so a slash-bearing target such as `a/../../evil.docx` collapses to a location outside the source file's dire

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
google.golang.org/grpc

Multiple security vulnerabilities have been identified and addressed in grpc-go affecting the xDS RBAC authorization engine (internal/xds/rbac) and the HTTP/2 transport server implementation (internal/transport). These vulnerabilities could result in: - Authorization Bypass (Fail-Open) when translating xDS RBAC policies containing `Metadata` or `RequestedServerName` fields. - Denial of Service (H

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary I'm reporting **two related TOTP one-time-use defects** in Gitea that survive the CVE-2021-45331 fix. The 2018 fix (PR #3878) introduced the `TwoFactor.LastUsedPasscode` field and added an in-memory inequality check on the web 2FA login path. That check works correctly in the single-request case, but it leaves two follow-up gaps: 1. **A TOCTOU race on the web surfaces (Defect 1).** T

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary A personal access token restricted with the public-only scope can still retrieve private organization membership and organization permission details for its own account through organization-listing endpoints. This bypass breaks the intended guarantee that such tokens are limited to public resources only. ### Details The issue affects the following endpoints: GET /api/v1/user/orgs GET

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary Gitea has robust SSRF protection via `hostmatcher.NewDialContext()` for webhook and migration clone URLs, which validates resolved IPs at the TCP dial level. However, three code paths use raw `http.Get()` (Go's `DefaultClient`) which completely bypasses this protection, enabling SSRF to internal services and local file read via the `file://` scheme. ### Vulnerable Code **File: `modu

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary The `ToHook()` function in `services/webhook/general.go` decrypts the webhook's `HeaderAuthorizationEncrypted` field and returns the plaintext authorization header in the API response. Any repository admin can read the full plaintext value of webhook authorization headers (Bearer tokens, Basic auth credentials, API keys) set by other admins. The authorization header is stored encrypte

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

**Author:** Prakhar Porwal **Date:** 2026-05-24 **Target:** Gitea (self-hosted Git service) **Branch tested:** `main` @ `b7e95cc48c` (development build, go1.26.3) **Component:** `routers/api/v1/org/action.go` (org-level Actions API) **OWASP:** API3:2023 Broken Object Property Level Authorization --- ## 1. Summary The org-level Actions REST endpoints ``` GET /api/v1/orgs/{org}/actions/runs GET

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary GHSA-8fwc-qjw5-rvgp ("Gitea may send release notification emails for private repositories to users whose access has been revoked", fix in PR #36319 / commit 8a98ac22) added `repo_model.ClearRepoWatches` as a defense for the state transition public→private. The cleanup was wired into `services/repository/repository.go::MakeRepoPrivate` only. The sister helper `services/repository/reposi

💡 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)
gitea.dev

### Summary Gitea's `/api/v1/teams/{id}` API routes do not correctly enforce the `public-only` access token restriction. A `public-only` token is intended to limit API access to public repositories and public organizations. However, several team API routes continue to return private team repository metadata and private team activity feed entries when called with a `public-only` token. ### Detai

💡 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)
gitea.dev

## Summary PR #38145 fixed ListPublicMembers and IsPublicMember but missed ListMembers. Any authenticated user can enumerate ALL members (not just public ones) of a private organization. ## Affected Versions <= v1.26.4 (latest) and main branch ## Root Cause routers/api/v1/org/member.go — ListMembers(): // Missing check: if !organization.HasOrgOrUserVisible(ctx, ctx.Org.Organization.AsUse

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary The OAuth2 sign-in callback in Gitea 1.26.1 unconditionally re-enables a locally-disabled account whenever the user authenticates through a linked external identity provider, silently undoing any administrator-initiated `Disable Account` action and issuing a fresh authenticated session in the same response. Once a user has linked any external IdP, the administrator's disable toggle be

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

# Summary An information disclosure issue in the Gitea Notification API allows users who have lost access to a private repository to continue accessing private issue or pull request information through existing notification threads. Although repository information is hidden after access revocation, the `subject` field remains accessible and continues to expose private metadata. # Details CVE-20

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary Gitea 1.26.2 does not properly enforce organization visibility restrictions on organization label read endpoints. A user without access to a private organization can retrieve labels belonging to that organization through the Organization Labels API. As a result, label metadata intended to be restricted to organization members may be disclosed. The issue is limited to unauthorized rea

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Vulnerability Header | Field | Value | | ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Vulnerability Title | Cached Per-Branch Permission Check in Pre-Receive Hook Allows Full Repository Write | | Severity Rating | High

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary The `POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/merge-upstream` endpoint continues to synchronize commits from a parent repository after the parent repository has been changed from public to private. A fork created while the parent repository was public can still receive commits made after the parent repository becomes private. As a result, content added during the private period becomes avai

💡 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)
INFO
ADVISORY 2026-07-21

Gitea: Two SSRF findings

推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
code.gitea.io/gitea

| --- | --- | | Versions tested | `gitea/gitea:1.26.2` (digest `sha256:7d13848af12645600a5f9d93ee2560daa9c6fa6b5b859b7bff3a5e1c0b661031`); `gitea/gitea:latest` resolves to the same digest at time of writing | | Source review | `git checkout v1.26.2` (commit `2c749ce`) | | Reproduction | `bash run_poc.sh` (single shot: brings up containers, runs three PoCs, prints captured evidence, tears down on e

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary The Locale middleware that runs in front of every unauthenticated request calls `golang.org/x/text/language.ParseAcceptLanguage` on the raw `Accept-Language` header without imposing a size or shape filter. The underlying parser has quadratic-time behaviour on long lists of malformed language tags. The CVE-2022-32149 guard that golang.org/x/text added in v0.3.8 caps the number of `-` c

💡 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)
推荐 12.4
Conf: 50%
code.gitea.io/gitea

Gitea's SSH key ingestion endpoint accepts keys in RFC 4716 (SSH2) format and normalises them before storage. The normalisation function contains an O(N²) string concatenation loop with no input size limit, meaning a single malicious key submission can force the server to perform an amount of work that grows quadratically with the size of the input. Any authenticated user can exploit this to exhau

💡 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)
推荐 12.4
Conf: 50%
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Repository Visibility Manipulation via Git Push Options | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | **Affected File** | `routers/private/hook_post_receive.go` | | **Affected Function** | `HookPostReceive()` | | **Affected Lines** | 173–225 | | **Prerequisite** | Attacker must have owner-level or admin collaborator access to the target repository | --- #### Description Gitea's post-receive git ho

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Description Gitea's OAuth2 sign-in callback reactivates a deactivated user account (`IsActive=false`) when the user signs in through an authentication source that does not issue refresh tokens (notably GitHub, and any OIDC/OAuth2 source configured without `offline_access`). PR #38009 added a gate intended to reactivate users only when the OAuth2 auto-sync cron had disabled them, using "the sto

💡 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)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

## Summary FileBrowser confines each user to a *scope*: a home directory that acts as the boundary for everything they can read or write. When self-registration and automatic home-directory creation are both enabled (`Signup=true` and `CreateUserDir=true`), a new user's scope is built from their username after it passes through `cleanUsername()`. That function rewrites the name: it strips `..` an

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

## Summary When a user creates a password-protected share or lists existing shares, the JSON response includes the full bcrypt `password_hash` and the secret `token` of the share. The `Link` storage struct is serialized directly with `json.Marshal` and tags `password_hash` and `token` for output, with no field filtering. Any authenticated user receives these secrets for their own shares, and an a

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

## Summary The fix for `GHSA-gxjx-7m74-hcq8` / `CVE-2026-54093` (shipped in v2.63.6) added a `strings.ReplaceAll(nameInArchive, "\\", "/")` step to the archive builder; this was the advisory's recommended "Primary Fix." On a Linux host a backslash is a legal, non-separator filename character, so replacing it with the real POSIX separator `/` **manufactures** a `/`-delimited traversal sequence out

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/zalando/skipper

### Summary A wrong policy can be an open door. You have to check `input.attributes.request.http.truncated_body` in your policy. ### Description Incomplete fix for CVE-2026-50197: an oversized declared-`Content-Length` body still hands OPA an empty `parsed_body`, so deny-on-presence Rego policies fail OPEN while the full payload reaches upstream. The CVE-2026-50197 fix (commit `3152f3b0`, PR

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/zalando/skipper

## Description The `routesrv` component exposes the full cluster route topology (Ingress/RouteGroup configurations, backend URLs, filter chains, OAuth/OIDC callback paths) and cache-cluster topology (Redis/Valkey shard addresses) over plain HTTP with **zero authentication**. Any pod in the Kubernetes cluster can reach routesrv via its predictable DNS name and retrieve sensitive cluster-wide routi

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### CVE Description Gitea versions up to and including 1.26.1 have insufficient permission checks for Composer package source links, which can expose private or internal package source information. ### Summary A critical vulnerability has been discovered in Gitea. It was already reported via (security@gitea.io) from (dev@noscope.com), and submitted an encrypted report.

💡 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)
github.com/oapi-codegen/oapi-codegen/v2

## Summary The vulnerability in oapi-codegen seems to be similar with CVE-2026-22785, which is a generated-code injection issue where untrusted OpenAPI `summary` text is embedded into generated TypeScript MCP server source without proper escaping. `oapi-codegen` has a similar vulnerability in its server URL generator: untrusted OpenAPI `servers[].description` text is inserted into a generated Go

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/zalando/skipper

## Summary The Kubernetes admission webhook handler reads the entire request body using `io.ReadAll(r.Body)` without any size limit. Any client that can reach the webhook port within the cluster can send a multi-GB payload, causing the skipper process to exhaust memory and be OOM-killed. This disrupts all Kubernetes admission control, potentially blocking all pod creation and updates. ## Vulnera

💡 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)
github.com/kumahq/kuma/v2, github.com/kumahq/kuma

When kuma-dp is started against an HTTPS control plane and the operator did not pass a CA certificate, the data plane connects with TLS peer verification disabled. The dataplane authentication token is sent over this unverified connection ## Impact An on-path attacker can intercept the dataplane authentication token and impersonate the control plane to the data plane, allowing them to inject a f

💡 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)
github.com/nuclio/nuclio

## Summary Nuclio Dashboard exposes `POST /api/functions` without authentication by default (NOP auth mode). The `spec.handler` field (e.g., `mymodule:myfunction`) is parsed by `functionconfig.ParseHandler()` which splits on `:` only — no path validation is applied to the module portion. During function build, `writeFunctionSourceCodeToTempFile()` passes the module name directly to `path.Join(te

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/nuclio/nuclio

## Summary Nuclio's Java runtime generates a `build.gradle` file during function builds using Go's `text/template` package. The template renders `runtimeAttributes.repositories[]` values with the `{{ . }}` action, which performs no escaping. An attacker can embed a closing brace (`}`) to break out of the `repositories {}` block and append arbitrary Groovy statements that execute unconditionally d

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

### Impact When Envoy Gateway runs in GatewayNamespaceMode (`provider.kubernetes.deploy.type=GatewayNamespace`), the xDS gRPC server is configured with a `StreamInterceptor` for JWT authentication but no UnaryInterceptor. The go-control-plane xDS server exposes both streaming and unary (Fetch) RPC methods for all registered discovery services. Since there is no unary interceptor, these Fetch endpo

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

### Impact The `to_absolute_normalized_path` function (security.lua:28-43) does not collapse redundant path separators (// → /). On Linux, `//etc/passwd` is equivalent to `/etc/passwd` (POSIX path semantics), but `is_critical_path` fails to match the double-slash variant because `//etc/passwd` does not start with `/etc/`. This allows Lua code submitted as an `EnvoyExtensionPolicy` to read arbitr

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

Vulnerability report without repro case. Repro case may be added later after harness is complete. **Preconditions (4):** - Pod-network reachability to :18002 (no auth) - Tenant can create EnvoyExtensionPolicy (baseline) - Attacker pod floods GET while churning EnvoyExtensionPolicy with distinct Wasm URLs - Read at :153 must overlap a write at :201/:209 (probabilistic, attacker controls both rates

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

Vulnerability report without repro case. Repro case may be added later after harness is complete. **Preconditions (4):** - Tenant can create EnvoyExtensionPolicy (baseline) - Controller has egress to attacker-controlled OCI registry - No registry allowlist (none exists in code) - Layer presents Docker/OCI media type **Description** At imagefetcher.go:287, make([]byte, h.Size) uses the attacker-

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

Vulnerability report without repro case. Repro case may be added later after harness is complete. **Preconditions (4):** - Tenant has SecurityPolicy + TCPRoute RBAC (baseline) - Tenant namespace permitted to attach TCPRoute to a Gateway listener - spec.authorization omitted (the trigger) - No admission webhook blocks the shape **Description:** A namespace-scoped tenant can deterministically pan

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

Vulnerability report without repro case. Repro case may be added later after harness is complete. **Preconditions (4):** - Tenant can create EnvoyExtensionPolicy (baseline) - Attacker hosts a gzip-bomb at a reachable URL - sha256 unset (optional field; check is post-decompression anyway) - No operator Wasm-URL allowlist (none exists in code) **Description** getFileFromGZ calls io.ReadAll on a r

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/envoyproxy/gateway

### Impact Envoy Gateway accepts extension-managed custom backendRefs from an HTTPRoute to a backend resource in another namespace without requiring a matching Gateway API ReferenceGrant in the target namespace. This breaks the Gateway API cross-namespace consent model: the namespace that owns the referenced backend resource does not need to opt in with a ReferenceGrant before another namespace’s

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kumahq/kuma/v2, github.com/kumahq/kuma

When an operator adds an HTTPS control plane profile to `kumactl` without providing a CA certificate, `kumactl` disables TLS verification and sends API tokens over the unverified connection ## Impact An attacker on the network path between the operator and the control plane can intercept user or admin API tokens and then act against the control plane as that user ## Affected configurations - `

💡 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)
github.com/stacklok/toolhive

# Security Advisory: SSRF in remote MCP server authentication discovery **Severity:** High. **CWE:** CWE-918. **Affected:** ToolHive through the latest release v0.29.3 and current `main` (HEAD b672d82f, 2026-06-12; re-verified 2026-06-14). `FetchResourceMetadata` and the discovery clients remain unguarded; no commits to `pkg/auth/discovery` or `pkg/auth/remote` address this. Originally identified

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/pomerium/pomerium

## Summary The HPKE V2 URL decode path in `pkg/hpke/url.go` decompresses attacker-controlled zstd data without any size limit. On Pomerium deployments using the stateless authentication flow (Pomerium Zero / hosted authenticate), the proxy's `/.pomerium/callback` endpoint is reachable without credentials and processes attacker-crafted HPKE-encrypted payloads before the sender's identity is valida

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-go, github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-go/v2

### Impact Datadog tracing libraries that implement W3C baggage propagation parse incoming baggage HTTP headers without enforcing item-count or byte-size limits on the extract path. The DD_TRACE_BAGGAGE_MAX_ITEMS (default 64) and DD_TRACE_BAGGAGE_MAX_BYTES (default 8192) limits were applied only to baggage injection, not extraction. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can send a request whose bagga

💡 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)
github.com/open-feature/open-feature-operator

## Summary A namespaced `FeatureFlagSource` or `InProcessConfiguration` resource can be referenced cross-namespace via the `openfeature.dev/featureflagsource` annotation using the documented `{NAMESPACE}/{NAME}` syntax. The operator resolves the referenced resource cluster-wide and materializes its contents (env vars, flagd sidecar arguments including `httpSyncBearerToken`, sync URIs, supporting

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/doyensec/safeurl

The `privateNetworks` blocklist was found to be missing newly added CIDR ranges. More specifically, the following CIDR ranges were not being blocked: - `64:ff9b:1::/48`: NAT64 local-use prefix (RFC 8215) - `5f00::/16`: Segment Routing (SRv6) SIDs (RFC 9602) - `3fff::/20`: documentation prefix (RFC 9637) - `100:0:0:1::/64`: Dummy IPv6 Prefix (RFC 9780) ### Impact If exploited, an attacker would po

💡 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)
github.com/stacklok/toolhive

## Summary ToolHive's hand-rolled private/reserved-IP SSRF guard (`networking.IsPrivateIP` in `pkg/networking/utilities.go`) does not recognize the IPv6 **NAT64** address ranges — the well-known prefix `64:ff9b::/96` (RFC 6052) and the RFC 8215 local-use prefix `64:ff9b:1::/48`. As a result, an address such as `64:ff9b:1::a9fe:a9fe` — the NAT64 encoding of the link-local cloud metadata address `1

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
go.woodpecker-ci.org/woodpecker/v3, github.com/woodpecker-ci/woodpecker, go.woodpecker-ci.org/woodpecker/v2

### Impact A privilege escalation vulnerability affects Woodpecker instances using the **Kubernetes backend**. The pipeline option `backend_options.kubernetes.serviceAccountName` was passed directly to the pod spec without any admin gating. **Who is impacted:** any operator running the Kubernetes backend. Any user with **Push** permission on a connected repository can run pipeline pods under an

💡 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)
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

### Summary Non-admin operators (role `user`) can set `allow_private: true` on their own managed webhook subscription (`POST`/`PATCH /api/v1/webhook-subscriptions`). No admin check exists on this field. At delivery time, `allow_private` switches the dispatcher to an unguarded HTTP client, bypassing the private/loopback/link-local SSRF guard — letting a low-privilege operator make the server reque

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

### Summary nebula-mesh revokes a host by adding its certificate fingerprint to a per-CA blocklist and shipping that list to every other agent on each poll. Slack's Nebula enforces certificate revocation ONLY through the `pki.blocklist` list in `config.yml` (no CRL/OCSP). The project's own code states this: `internal/pki/durations.go:15` — "Revocation via the blocklist remains the immediate secur

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

### Summary The `nebula-mgmt` Web UI host-creation path ignores both the server-wide `enrollment_token_ttl` security setting and per-network `network_config.enrollment_token_ttl` overrides. API host creation and token-regeneration paths use the configured TTL resolver, but `POST /ui/hosts` hardcodes `now.Add(24 * time.Hour)` for newly minted agent enrollment tokens. In deployments that intentional

💡 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)
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

### Summary When OIDC is enabled, `GET /ui/oidc/login` is reachable without authentication and is registered outside the Web UI rate-limited auth routes. Every request creates a fresh random OIDC state value and stores it in an in-memory map for `10m`. Expired states are swept lazily, but there is no rate limit or maximum live-state cap on the allocation path. An unauthenticated remote client can

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/julien040/anyquery

## Summary Anyquery's `server` mode lacks input sanitization and access control over its built-in SQLite virtual table modules (e.g., `csv_reader`, `log_reader`). Unauthenticated attackers connecting to the MySQL-compatible server port can create virtual tables pointing to local files on the system (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, `~/.ssh/id_rsa`). This allows full Local File Read (LFR) capabilities, comprom

💡 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)
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

## Impact Operator session tokens are stored in plaintext in the `operator_sessions` table (the `token` column is the PRIMARY KEY). The session token is a 32-byte random hex value sent directly in a cookie and valid for 24 hours. - `internal/models/operator.go:61` — `OperatorSession.Token` holds the plaintext token. - `internal/store/sqlite_operators.go:590` — `CreateOperatorSession` inserts `se

💡 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)
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

## Impact The web handler `renderMobileBundle` (`internal/web/handlers.go:1325`) passes the real `*pki.CAResolver` directly into `mobilebundle.Build`. Inside `Build` (`internal/mobilebundle/builder.go:54`), `resolver.LoadByID` decrypts the CA's ed25519 private key into a `*pki.CAManager`, but `Build` never calls `CAManager.Wipe()` on any return path (success or any of the error paths at lines 56,

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/julien040/anyquery

## Summary Anyquery's `server` mode does not restrict outbound HTTP requests initiated by its built-in SQLite virtual table modules (e.g., `json_reader`, `log_reader`). Unauthenticated attackers connecting to the MySQL-compatible server port can create virtual tables pointing to internal network endpoints or Cloud Metadata IPs (e.g., `http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/`). This allows attacke

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/ech0

### Summary Ech0's i18n middleware runs on every HTTP request and constructs a fresh `*goi18n.Localizer` from the raw `Accept-Language` header without imposing any size or shape filter. `goi18n.NewLocalizer` calls `golang.org/x/text/language.ParseAcceptLanguage` on the value internally. The underlying parser has quadratic-time behaviour on long lists of malformed language tags. The CVE-2022-32149

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/aquasecurity/trivy

## Summary When Trivy scans a Helm chart archive (`.tgz`), its custom tar unpacker reads each entry with `io.ReadAll(tr)` and no size limit. An attacker who can place a malicious `.tgz` file in the scanned path can craft a small compressed archive that decompresses to gigabytes, causing the Trivy process to be killed by the OS OOM killer. ## Affected configurations Exploitation requires the att

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/almeidapaulopt/tsdproxy

## Description The HTTP reverse proxy handler in tsdproxy does not strip the X-Forwarded-For (or X-Real-IP) header from incoming requests before calling r.SetXForwarded(). This allows an authenticated Tailscale user to inject arbitrary X-Forwarded-For values that are forwarded verbatim to backend services. ```go // internal/proxymanager/port.go -- Rewrite function Rewrite: func(r *httputil.Proxy

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/eat-pray-ai/yutu

## Arbitrary File Write via MCP `caption-download` Tool ### Summary The `caption-download` MCP tool in yutu passes the caller-supplied `file` parameter directly to `os.Create()` at `pkg/caption/caption.go:272` without any path validation, canonicalization, or confinement to the `pkg.Root` boundary (`YUTU_ROOT`). A local attacker — or any process able to reach the HTTP MCP server — can write arbi

💡 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)
go.woodpecker-ci.org/woodpecker/v3

### Impact A vulnerability in Woodpecker CI's gRPC layer allowed any authenticated agent to impersonate any other agent on the same server by injecting a forged `agent_id` value into outgoing gRPC metadata. The server correctly verified the JWT token but then discarded the verified agent identity in favor of the client-supplied value. ### Patches Direct patch: https://github.com/woodpecker-ci/woo

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/julien040/anyquery

## Summary Anyquery's `server` mode does not disable or restrict native SQLite disk manipulation commands. Unauthenticated attackers connecting to the MySQL-compatible server port can use the `ATTACH DATABASE` command to write arbitrary SQLite databases to any path on the victim's filesystem where the process has write permissions. This leads to Arbitrary File Write (AFW) which could lead to Remot

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
github.com/StacklokLabs/mkp

## Unbounded Pod Log Read via Attacker-Controlled `limitBytes`/`tailLines` Causes Memory Exhaustion ### Summary The MKP (Model Context Protocol for Kubernetes) server exposes a `get_resource` MCP tool that proxies Kubernetes pod log requests. User-supplied `limitBytes` and `tailLines` parameters are parsed as unbounded `int64` values and forwarded directly to the Kubernetes API. The server then

💡 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)
github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly

### Summary: Remote post-serve actions use `http.DefaultClient` without any timeout configuration. When the remote endpoint is unreachable or intentionally slow (accepts TCP connection but never responds), each triggered proxy request spawns a goroutine that blocks indefinitely on `http.DefaultClient.Do()`. An attacker can cause unbounded goroutine accumulation leading to memory exhaustion and pr

💡 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)
github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly

### Summary: When Hoverfly is running in Diff mode, the `AddDiff()` function writes to the shared `responsesDiff` map without any synchronization (no mutex). When multiple proxy requests are processed concurrently (the normal case for any proxy), the concurrent map writes trigger Go's built-in race detector which causes a `fatal error: concurrent map read and map write`, immediately killing the e

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/k3s-io/k3s

#### Summary A path traversal vulnerability exists in K3s's etcd snapshot decompression functionality. Zip files containing archive members with maliciously crafted names (e.g., `../../../../etc/password`) can be written to arbitrary locations on the filesystem when an administrator restores the archive as a compressed etcd snapshot. #### Mitigations * Enable golang's built-in [insecure path pr

💡 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)
github.com/almeidapaulopt/tsdproxy

## Description A vulnerability was discovered in TSDProxy where it forwards its internal per-process authentication token to all proxied backend services. When `identityHeaders` is enabled (the default), tsdproxy injects `x-tsdproxy-auth-token` into every upstream HTTP request alongside user identity headers. This token is the same secret used by the management HTTP server to trust forwarded Tail

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.0) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
chainguard.dev/apko, chainguard.dev/melange

Previously, Apko verified the control section hash (`.PKGINFO` etc.) against the signed `APKINDEX`, but never verified the data section hash (the actual package files that get installed). An attacker who could compromise a mirror, poison a cache, or MITM a package fetch could substitute arbitrary file contents while the control hash check still passed.

💡 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)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

SiYuan v3.6.5 and earlier versions contain a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Attribute View (database) asset cell renderer that escalates to remote code execution (RCE) in the Electron desktop client. This is a neighbor-bug of CVE-2026-44588: the fix for -44588 used `escapeAriaLabel()` (double-escapes `${item.name || item.content}`; The `>${item.name || item.content}` por

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary The attribute-view (database) cell renderer `genAVValueHTML` interpolates cell content raw in four of its branches: `text`, `url`, `phone`, and `mAsset`. A cell value like `` or `">` breaks out of its surrounding tag and runs arbitrary JavaScript in the renderer when the victim opens the block-attribute panel. On Electron desktop the renderer runs with `nodeIntegration:true`, so the X

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

## Overview The Hook Authentication feature in File Browser allows administrators to delegate login verification to an external shell command. User-supplied credentials (username and password) are interpolated into this command string using `os.Expand` without sanitization. An **unauthenticated remote attacker** can inject shell metacharacters in the username or password field at the login screen

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

## Summary `renderPackageREADME` in `kernel/bazaar/readme.go` renders a Bazaar package README from Markdown to HTML with the lute engine and `SetSanitize(true)`. The lute sanitizer is an event-handler blocklist: `allowAttr` rejects only attribute names present in a fixed `eventAttrs` map copied from the w3schools legacy handler list. That map omits modern event handlers. `onpointerover`, `onpoin

💡 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)
推荐 20.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

## Summary When FileBrowser is configured with proxy authentication (`auth.method=proxy`), any unauthenticated attacker who can reach the server directly can impersonate **any user - including admin** - by sending a single forged HTTP header. No credentials are required. Additionally, specifying a non-existent username causes the server to **automatically create a new user account**, providing an

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

## Summary SiYuan Note's kernel HTTP server unconditionally trusts all `chrome-extension://` origins, granting `RoleAdministrator` access to every installed browser extension without any authentication. Combined with the default empty `AccessAuthCode` on desktop installs, any Chrome/Chromium extension -- including a compromised legitimate extension via supply chain attack -- can make fully authen

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary The `/api/icon/getDynamicIcon` endpoint is explicitly excluded from authentication in SiYuan's kernel router (`router.go`, "不需要鉴权" -- no auth needed). When called with `type=8` and a valid block `id` parameter, this endpoint invokes `RenderDynamicIconContentTemplate`, which executes a Go template that includes the `querySQL` and `queryBlocks` functions. These functions run arbitrary S

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/xuri/excelize/v2

## Unbounded Row Index Allocation in Worksheet Parser (checkSheet OOM/Panic DoS) ### Summary The `checkSheet()` function in `github.com/xuri/excelize/v2` uses an attacker-controlled `` XML attribute value directly as the length argument to `make([]xlsxRow, row)` without validating it against the Excel row limit (`TotalRows = 1,048,576`). A specially crafted XLSX file can trigger two denial-of-ser

💡 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)
github.com/authorizerdev/authorizer

## Summary The `/authorize` endpoint accepts any `redirect_uri` without validating it against `AllowedOrigins`. When `response_type=token` or `response_type=id_token`, the server appends `access_token`, `id_token`, and `refresh_token` as query parameters and issues a 302 redirect to the attacker-supplied URL. An unauthenticated attacker can obtain the required `client_id` from the public `/graphq

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.3) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary A CSS snippet body containing `` breaks out of its surrounding `` tag when `renderSnippet()` interpolates it via `insertAdjacentHTML`. A payload like `` runs arbitrary JavaScript in the renderer. On Electron desktop builds the renderer runs with `nodeIntegration:true`, so `require('child_process')` is reachable from the injected handler and the XSS chains to host RCE. Snippets sync vi

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

## Summary The patch for CVE-2026-41894 ("Path Traversal via Double URL Encoding") sanitized the `/export/` route but the **identical root cause remains in the `/assets/*path` route**. In publish mode (anonymous read-only HTTP endpoint, default port 6808), an unauthenticated remote attacker can read arbitrary files inside `WorkspaceDir` — including `conf/conf.json` (which contains the `Acc

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/osrg/gobgp/v4

Found through variant analysis based on `CVE-2026-41643` ## Summary GoBGP accepts a zero-length AS_PATH during UPDATE decoding and later panics while validating that attribute for a confederation eBGP peer. The vulnerable path is in the BGP UPDATE validator: a malformed UPDATE that should be rejected as a malformed AS_PATH instead reaches an unchecked `p.Value[0]` access, allowing a configured co

💡 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)
github.com/osrg/gobgp/v4

### Summary GoBGP contains a BGP OPEN capability parsing issue where several concrete capability decoders may parse data from the full remaining capability buffer instead of the slice bounded by the declared capability length, `CapLen`. A malformed BGP OPEN message can cause bytes from a following capability to be interpreted as part of the current capability. The most security-relevant ca

💡 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)
github.com/sigstore/sigstore-go

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ A verifier configured with WithTransparencyLog(N>1) or WithSignedCertificateTimestamps(N>1) expected defense-in-depth against the compromise of a single log instance. However, threshold counting counted verified witnesses per-entry or per-validation-path rather than per-log-authority. As a result, a single compromised transparency l

💡 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)
github.com/openrundev/openrun

### Summary The restrictions on redirect URLs in `openrun` can be bypassed by attackers, leading to open redirect attacks. ### Details In the current project, the referrer header value is used for subsequent redirects, so there is currently a validation for this redirect value. The current validation logic requires that the host and schema of the redirect URL be the same as the current website's

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/forgekeep/nebula-mesh

## Summary Two related authorization gaps let a host that should no longer be trusted obtain a fresh, valid Nebula certificate, because nebula-mgmt does not re-evaluate revocation/authorization state at certificate *issuance* time — only at poll time. ## 1. Blocklist not enforced at sign / re-enroll time `internal/api/enroll.go:128` calls `caMgr.Sign(...)` without consulting the blocklist. The

💡 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)
推荐 15.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/BishopFox/joro

# Unauthenticated Cross-Origin Plugin Upload Leads to RCE (Joro ≤ v1.1.0) **Severity:** Critical **CVSS v3.1:** 9.6 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H) **Affected versions:** Joro ≤ v1.1.0, proxy mode (default), Linux/macOS **Reporter:** cstover **Date:** 2026-05-27 --- ## Summary Joro's default proxy mode (in versions <= 1.1.0) exposes a local API on `127.0.0.1:9090` that performs no authen

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/nuclio/nuclio

## Summary Nuclio controller builds a `curl` invocation string for each cron trigger and stores it as the `args` of a Kubernetes CronJob container (`/bin/sh`, `-c`, ``). Two fields in the trigger specification flow into this string without adequate sanitization: - `event.headers` keys — interpolated verbatim inside double-quoted `--header` arguments (`lazy.go:2150`); any key containing `"` break

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/zalando/skipper

### Summary `zalando/skipper`'s OpenPolicyAgent integration silently bypasses request-body inspection on HTTP/1.1 `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` and HTTP/2 requests that omit the `content-length` pseudo-header. When the `opaAuthorizeRequestWithBody` filter is configured, the `OpenPolicyAgentInstance.ExtractHttpBodyOptionally` helper produces an empty `raw_body` for any request whose `Content-Length

💡 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)
github.com/oasdiff/oasdiff

## Summary From **v1.13.2** through **v1.18.0**, oasdiff did not enforce `--allow-external-refs=false` (library: `openapi3.Loader.IsExternalRefsAllowed = false`) when loading a spec from a **git revision** (the `rev:path` form, e.g. `main:openapi.yaml`). External `$ref`s were resolved on that load path even when external refs were explicitly disabled, so the mitigation silently did not apply ther

💡 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)
github.com/kedacore/keda/v2

### Summary `pkg/scalers/postgresql_scaler.go` builds libpq-style connection strings by concatenating `key=value` pairs separated by spaces. Each tenant-controllable field (`host`, `port`, `userName`, `dbName`, `sslmode`) is passed through `escapePostgreConnectionParameter`: ```go func escapePostgreConnectionParameter(str string) string { if !strings.Contains(str, " ") { return str

💡 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)
github.com/zhenorzz/goploy

> [ Click here to jump to the Simplified Chinese version (点击跳转到简体中文版本)](#goploy-系统任意文件读取) # Goploy System Arbitrary File Read Vulnerability ## Basic Information - **Vulnerability Name**: Goploy Endpoints Arbitrary File Read via Path Traversal - **Vulnerability Type**: Path Traversal (CWE-22) / Arbitrary File Read - **Affected Product**: Goploy - **Severity Level**: High (CVSS V3 7.7) - **Known Af

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/zhenorzz/goploy

### Summary `Project.AddFile`, `Project.EditFile`, `Project.RemoveFile`, and `Project.Edit` in `cmd/server/api/project/handler.go` accept a project or project-file row id from the JSON body and act on it without checking that the project belongs to the caller's namespace. The corresponding `model.ProjectFile.GetData` and `model.Project.GetData` queries filter only by row id. A user holding the `m

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/zxh326/kite

## Summary Authenticated Kite users with any role can request `/api/v1/overview` for a cluster that their roles do not permit by selecting that cluster with `x-cluster-name`. The overview route is registered before `middleware.RBACMiddleware()` and `GetOverview` only checks `len(user.Roles) > 0`, so it returns aggregate Kubernetes inventory and capacity data from unauthorized clusters. The issue

💡 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)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/tinfoil-factory/netfoil

### Summary Domain names were written to the log without first being validated to contain allowed characters. ### Impact Depends on how the logs were used.

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/tinfoil-factory/netfoil

### Summary When an entry was removed from the LRU cache, a pointer to the removed element was not properly cleaned up. ### Impact A local attacker can get netfoil to use more memory. By default this is limited to 100MB via systemd, which would trigger service restarts when reached.

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/tinfoil-factory/netfoil

### Summary Potential bypass of domain name filter by crafting a DNS request with multiple questions, with the first question being legitimate. ### Impact Depends on a local attackers ability to craft multiple questions and the remote DoH server supporting them.

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary `agentConn.apiClient()` used the default redirect behavior of `http.Client` while its custom transport dialed the host from the request URL as long as the port was the workspace agent HTTP API port (`4`). Agent tailnet IPs are deterministic from agent UUIDs, so a malicious workspace agent could return a redirect to another agent's tailnet IP and cause the control-plane client to send

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary Coder's subdomain-based workspace app proxy allowed the same-owner CORS check to be bypassed. When a workspace-name subdomain segment parsed as a UUID, the workspace was resolved by ID without confirming the URL's username matched the real owner, while the CORS middleware trusted the unverified username in the hostname. > **Note:** Practical exploitation requires subdomain app routin

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The `AgentLogLine` dashboard component instantiated `ansi-to-html` without `escapeXML: true` and inserted the result via `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` so HTML embedded in workspace agent log lines was rendered as live markup. Server-side sanitization did not neutralize HTML metacharacters. > **Note:** Exploitation requires a victim to view attacker-controlled agent logs in the dashboard.

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The AI Bridge Proxy (`aibridgeproxyd`) created a goproxy server whose default transport set `InsecureSkipVerify: true` and only assigned a secure transport when an upstream proxy was configured. In the default configuration (no upstream proxy), outbound HTTPS to the Coder access URL accepted any TLS certificate. > **Note:** Practical exploitation requires an on-path (man-in-the-middl

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary AI Bridge proxy endpoints authenticate via `Server.IsAuthorized` in `coderd/aibridgedserver`, which validates key format, expiry, secret and deleted or system users but does not check whether the account is suspended. Because suspension does not revoke existing API keys, a suspended user's unexpired token keeps working. > **Note:** Practical impact is limited to already-issued API ke

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary AI Bridge provider handlers read request bodies with `io.ReadAll` without a maximum size so an authenticated user with AI Bridge access could send an arbitrarily large body and exhaust memory. > **Note:** Exploitation requires authenticated access to the AI Bridge endpoints and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). ### Impact An authenticated member-level user

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The devcontainer recreate endpoint relied on route middleware that checked only `ActionRead` on the workspace and, unlike the sibling delete endpoint, performed no `ActionUpdate` check before triggering the destructive rebuild. > **Note:** Exploitation requires an existing low-privilege role with access to the target workspace. ### Impact Any authenticated principal with read-only

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The `CreateSubAgent` RPC did not validate a requested app sharing level against the template's `MaxPortSharingLevel` before persisting workspace apps, letting a workspace owner exceed the administrator's configured maximum. > **Note:** Exploitation requires the ability to register sub-agent apps in a workspace the attacker controls. ### Impact A workspace owner with an agent token

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary `coder open app` opens external workspace-app URLs without validating the scheme or host. When an external app URL contains the `$SESSION_TOKEN` placeholder the CLI replaces it with the user's real session token before handing the URL to the OS open handler. > **Note:** Practical exploitation requires the victim to run `coder open app` against a workspace whose external app definitio

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. > **Note:** Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). ### Impact An authenticated user could

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The workspace app proxy resolves the target app from `httpapi.RequestHost()` which prefers the `X-Forwarded-Host` header over the real `Host` header. No middleware strips `X-Forwarded-Host` before routing and the header is not browser-forbidden so client-side JavaScript can set it on `fetch()` calls. > **Note:** Practical exploitation requires subdomain app routing (wildcard hostname

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The tailnet coordinator validates that an agent's `Addresses` derive from its authenticated UUID but applies no equivalent check to `AllowedIPs`. The coordinator forwards agent-supplied `AllowedIPs` verbatim to tunnel peers which install them into the WireGuard peer configuration. ### Impact A malicious workspace agent can advertise arbitrary `AllowedIPs` prefixes including another

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary `UpsertWorkspaceApp` overwrites an existing app's `agent_id` on a primary-key conflict and `insertAgentApp` accepts the app ID from the provisioner's `CompleteJob` payload without verifying it belongs to the workspace being built. `CompleteJob` runs under `dbauthz.AsProvisionerd` so the authorization layer does not block the cross-workspace upsert. > **Note:** Exploitation requires e

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary `NewDataBuilder` in `provisionersdk/proto/dataupload.go` allocated a byte slice using the client-supplied `FileSize` from a `DataUpload` message without an upper-bound check. Although the DRPC wire limit is 4 MiB, the `FileSize` value itself was unconstrained ### Impact An authenticated user able to reach the provisioner daemon serve endpoint could send a roughly 50-byte message dec

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary `coder config-ssh` wrote server-supplied SSH settings (`HostnameSuffix`, `SSHConfigOptions`) into the user's `~/.ssh/config` without sanitizing embedded newlines or restricting directives so a malicious or compromised Coder server could inject arbitrary SSH configuration. > **Note:** Practical exploitation requires control of the server-supplied values through a malicious or compromi

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary The `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. > **Note:** Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary Two flaws in Coder's OIDC login chained into account takeover: email-based user matching fell back to linking by email without checking for an existing link to a different IdP subject and the `email_verified` claim was only enforced when present as a boolean `false` so an absent or non-boolean claim was treated as verified. ### Impact An attacker who could authenticate at the config

💡 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)
github.com/coder/coder/v2

### Summary Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. ### Impact An attacker who registered a vic

💡 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)
github.com/cilium/cilium

### Impact Users with the ability to create CiliumLocalRedirectPolicies can specify arbitrary ClusterIPs via addressMatcher, which enables hijacking traffic to Services in any namespace, bypassing the namespace-scoping guarantees enforced by serviceMatcher. In addition, deleting such a policy can corrupt Cilium's internal service state, causing service translation to stop working entirely for th

💡 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)
github.com/gofiber/fiber

### Summary The `helmet` middleware in gofiber/fiber never sets the `Strict-Transport-Security` (HSTS) response header, even when `HSTSMaxAge` is explicitly configured, because the condition check at `helmet.go:67` uses `c.Protocol()` — which returns the HTTP protocol version string (e.g., `"HTTP/1.1"`, `"HTTP/2.0"`) — instead of `c.Scheme()` — which returns the URL scheme (`"http"` or `"https"`)

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
d7y.io/dragonfly/v2

## Summary The Dragonfly **scheduler**'s v1 gRPC service contains an unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). When a peer reports a successful download of a TINY task, the scheduler calls `Peer.DownloadTinyFile()` and issues an HTTP `GET` to a host and port taken verbatim from the attacker-controlled `PeerHost.Ip` / `PeerHost.DownPort` fields of the gRPC request body. The HTTP client u

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
golang.org/x/image

The TIFF decoder does not place a limit on the size of PackBits-compressed data. A maliciously-crafted image can exploit this to cause a small image (both in terms of pixel width/height and encoded size) to make the decoder decode large amounts of compressed data.

💡 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)
github.com/xyproto/algernon

### Summary Algernon selects its file handler from `filepath.Ext()` (engine/handlers.go:134), which does not treat the NTFS-equivalent names `x.lua::$DATA`, `x.lua.`, or `x.lua ` as `.lua`. On Windows, an unauthenticated client appends one of these suffixes to any server-side script on a public path and receives its raw source instead of executed output, leaking embedded secrets such as database

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
goshs.de/goshs/v2

# Share-link `?token=…` redemption races past download limit **Ecosystem:** Go **Package:** `goshs.de/goshs/v2` (`github.com/patrickhener/goshs`) **Affected:** ` 0 || entry.DownloadLimit == -1 { // ...serve file... // = current.DownloadLimit { delete(fs.SharedLinks, token) } fs.sharedLinksMu.Unlock() ``` Between line 978 (`RUnlock`) and line 1008 (`Lock`), any number

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
goshs.de/goshs/v2

# WebDAV listener ignores `--read-only`, `--upload-only`, and `--no-delete` mode flags **Ecosystem:** Go **Package:** `goshs.de/goshs/v2` (`github.com/patrickhener/goshs`) **Affected:** ` /tmp/r/x.txt goshs -p 18000 -wp 18001 -w -ro -d /tmp/r -b admin:pw & curl -u admin:pw -X PUT http://localhost:18000/y.txt --data x # 403 (HTTP enforces -ro) curl -u admin:pw -X PUT http://localhost:180

💡 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)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
oras.land/oras-go/v2

# ORAS Go forwards registry credentials across registry redirects Reporter / public credit: JUNYI LIU ## Summary ORAS Go can forward registry credentials configured for one registry origin to a different HTTP origin during registry redirects. There are two related paths: 1. A manifest or metadata request authenticates to the origin registry, then the origin returns a redirect to another host

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
oras.land/oras-go/v2

### Root cause The tar-extraction helper `ensureLinkPath` at [`content/file/utils.go:262-275`](https://github.com/oras-project/oras-go/blob/main/content/file/utils.go#L262-L275) validates that a hardlink's target resolves inside the extract base, but then returns the original unresolved `target` string back to the caller: ```go func ensureLinkPath(baseAbs, baseRel, link, target string) (string,

💡 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)
oras.land/oras-go/v2

The file content store in `oras-go` attempts to confine writes to `workingDir` when `AllowPathTraversalOnWrite=false`, but the guard is lexical and does not account for symlink traversal. If `workingDir` contains a symlink path component and an attacker-controlled blob title (via `ocispec.AnnotationTitle`) targets a path under that symlink, `pushFile()` can create a file outside `workingDir`. ##

💡 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)
oras.land/oras-go/v2

## Summary oras-go follows a registry-controlled `Location` header during the monolithic blob upload flow and reuses the `Authorization` header from the initial `POST` request for the subsequent `PUT` request. If a malicious registry returns a cross-host `Location`, oras-go can send the caller's credentials to an attacker-controlled endpoint. ## Affected Versions tested: v2.6.0 (commit 03243809

💡 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)
oras.land/oras-go/v2, oras.land/oras-go

## Summary oras-go's `auth.Client` follows the `realm` URL from a registry's `WWW-Authenticate: Bearer` challenge without validating its scheme or host. The `realm` field is server-controlled by design in the OCI/distribution spec — registries legitimately point token requests at a separate auth endpoint (e.g. Docker Hub's `registry-1.docker.io` -> `auth.docker.io`), so cross-host realms on publi

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/rancher/rancher

### Impact A vulnerability has been identified in Rancher Manager that allows users assigned the Project Owner role to modify Pod Security Admission (PSA) labels on namespaces within their projects. Under the default role configuration, an attacker with the following access pattern can exploit this issue: 1. **Cluster Access:** The user is granted Cluster Member access. 2. **Project Ownership:**

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/axllent/mailpit

### Summary The fix for GHSA-fpxj-m5q8-fphw (CVE-2026-45710, "Mailpit: Set a default 50MB p/m limit to prevent DoS via unlimited SMTP DATA and /api/v1/send body sizes") wrapped only `POST /api/v1/send` with `http.MaxBytesReader`. The four other Mailpit JSON-body API endpoints `PUT /api/v1/messages` (SetReadStatus), `DELETE /api/v1/messages` (DeleteMessages), `PUT /api/v1/tags` (SetMessageTags),

💡 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)
github.com/rancher/rancher

### Impact A vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager in the GitHub App authentication provider. When evaluating permissions, the provider incorrectly expands user team memberships to include all teams within the associated GitHub organization, rather than restricting access to the specific teams to which the user actually belongs. Specifically, when a user authenticates via the

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/rancher/fleet

### Impact A vulnerability in Fleet for Rancher Manager affects multi-tenancy environments where different tenants share the same downstream clusters (e.g., different privileged or untrusted teams inside the same organization). On unpatched versions, tenants could bypass restrictions to access any config map or secret across all namespaces on the downstream cluster. They can create cluster-wide

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/rancher/fleet

### Impact A vulnerability has been identified in Fleet when the `helmRepoURLRegex` field isn't set on a `GitRepo` resource. Fleet's bundle reader forwards Helm authentication credentials (`BasicAuth`) to any URL specified in the `helm.repo` field of a `fleet.yaml` file. An attacker with git push access to a Fleet-monitored repository can exploit this behavior by specifying a malicious URL in `he

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/rancher/rancher

### Impact A critical command injection vulnerability has been identified in the Rancher Manager cluster import endpoint `/v3/import/{token}_{clusterId}.yaml` through unsanitized YAML parameters. This endpoint accepts an `authImage` query parameter that is rendered without sanitization into a generated Kubernetes manifest template. By including URL-encoded newlines in the parameter value, an atta

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/rancher/fleet

### Impact A vulnerability has been identified in Fleet when the webhook endpoint is configured without a secret; an attacker can forge webhook requests. The attacker doesn't need to know the specific repository or path configured in the GitRepo resource to make Fleet process these requests. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to cause the following impacts: 1. Trigger continuous repositor

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/rancher/fleet

### Impact A vulnerability has been identified in Fleet's agent-side deployer, which did not filter security-sensitive keys from `namespaceLabels` in `fleet.yaml` (or `BundleDeployment.spec.options.namespaceLabels`) when applying them to the target namespace. An attacker with `git push` access to a Fleet-monitored repository could overwrite Pod Security Standards (PSS) enforcement labels on a ta

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v6, github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v5, github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v4, github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo/v3, github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo

#### Summary Centrifugo's dynamic JWKS endpoint feature can verify a JWT for one allowed issuer using a public key cached from another allowed issuer. The JWKS cache and `singleflight` lookup are keyed only by the JWT header `kid`, not by the resolved JWKS endpoint, issuer, audience, or other trust-domain namespace. In a documented multi-issuer dynamic JWKS configuration, an attacker who can obt

💡 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)
github.com/sigstore/timestamp-authority/v2, github.com/sigstore/timestamp-authority

### Impact An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger unbounded memory growth on the timestamp authority server. This vulnerability exists because the global `wrapMetrics` middleware records the raw HTTP request path (`r.URL.Path`) and raw HTTP request method (`r.Method`) as Prometheus labels for latency and request count metric vectors. Since this middleware runs before standard routing occ

💡 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)
github.com/sigstore/fulcio

## Impact Three security vulnerabilities were identified in the OIDC Discovery client: 1. **Blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via Cross-Host Redirects**: Fulcio uses an HTTP client to fetch OIDC discovery metadata (`/.well-known/openid-configuration`). Prior to this fix, if a configured issuer returned an HTTP redirect to a different host, the client followed it by default. This allowe

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
go.probo.inc/probo

### Impact Probo's `saferedirect` package validates redirect URLs used across authentication flows (OIDC, SAML, session transfer, OAuth connectors, and trust-center magic links). The validator only inspected the second character of relative paths, so a URL like `/../\evil.com` passed validation because the second character is `.`. Go's `http.Redirect` normalizes this path to `/\evil.com` before se

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary A follow-up bypass of the round-4 PodSpec hardening (GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7, GHSA-wmgg-3p4h-48x7, GHSA-v455-mv2v-5g92). Those advisories validate and sanitize the `PodSpec` (`spec.runtime.podSpec` / `spec.builder.podSpec` / `function.spec.podSpec`), but the Environment CRD also exposes `spec.runtime.container` and `spec.builder.container` — a standalone `Container` merged into the runtim

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary Fission builder pods were created with `ServiceAccountName: fission-builder` and no `AutomountServiceAccountToken: false`, so the kubelet auto-mounted the service-account token into every container in the pod — including the user-supplied builder image. ### Details The user controls the builder container image, command, and podspec through `Environment.spec.builder.image` / `.contai

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary Fission's `Environment` CRD exposes `spec.runtime.podSpec` and `spec.builder.podSpec`, which are merged into the Kubernetes pod specs for runtime and builder pods. The merge logic propagated `hostNetwork`, `hostPID`, `hostIPC`, container `privileged`, and `serviceAccountName` from the user-supplied podspec with no filtering, and `Environment.Validate` performed no security-relevant c

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary Fission's Container Executor path lets a tenant supply `Function.spec.podspec` directly; the executor merges it into the executor-built podspec and creates a Deployment whose pods run the user's container image. ### Details Two flaws compounded: 1. `pkg/apis/core/v1/validation.go::FunctionSpec.Validate` only checked that `spec.PodSpec != nil` when `executorType: container`; it did

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary A stronger framing of the same root cause as GHSA-gx55-f84r-v3r7: the `Environment.spec.runtime.podSpec` / `spec.builder.podSpec` passthrough lacked validation, and `MergePodSpec` propagated dangerous fields into the generated pods. ### Details Three independent flaws compounded: 1. **Validate gap.** `pkg/apis/core/v1/validation.go::Environment.Validate` checked only container nami

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary The Fission Function admission webhook (`pkg/webhook/function.go`) validated that `spec.secrets[].namespace` and `spec.configmaps[].namespace` equalled the function's own namespace but performed no equivalent check on `spec.environment.namespace`. ### Details An attacker with permission to create Functions in their own namespace could set `spec.environment.namespace` to any other te

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary A Fission Function spec carries three reference types — Secret, ConfigMap, and Package. The first two were namespace-validated by the admission webhook; `PackageRef.Namespace` was not. ### Details A tenant with `functions.fission.io/create` in their own namespace could set `spec.package.packageref.namespace` to any other namespace. When the function is invoked, the fetcher sidecar r

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary A low-privilege developer who could create a `KubernetesWatchTrigger` (KWT) in their own namespace was able to establish a persistent surveillance channel over any other namespace. ### Details Two independent flaws compounded: 1. `pkg/kubewatcher/kubewatcher.go::createKubernetesWatch` used `w.Spec.Namespace` (user-controlled) directly as the Watch target without checking it against

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary Fission's `buildermgr` controller processed `Package` CRDs without verifying that `Package.spec.environment.namespace` matched `Package.metadata.namespace`. ### Details An attacker with `packages.fission.io/create` in their own namespace could set `spec.environment.namespace` to any other tenant's namespace. The controller then used its high-privilege service account to fetch the En

💡 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)
github.com/fission/fission

### Summary The Fission MessageQueueTrigger (MQT) scaler controller exposed two privilege-escalation primitives to any subject able to create MQTs in a namespace. ### Details **1. Secret materialization.** `getEnvVarlist` in `pkg/mqtrigger/scalermanager.go` read the Secret named in `Spec.Secret` using the controller's cluster-wide `secrets/get` RBAC and emitted each key as a literal `EnvVar.Val

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/v25

## Summary The `checkUserPassword` GraphQL query in Dgraph is vulnerable to DQL (Dgraph Query Language) injection. User-supplied password values are interpolated directly into a DQL `checkpwd()` query via `fmt.Sprintf` without any escaping or parameterization. An attacker can inject a password containing a double-quote character to break out of the DQL string literal and append arbitrary DQL quer

💡 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

### Summary The `GET /api/v1/ddns` and `GET /api/v1/notification` endpoints return full resource objects including plaintext third-party API credentials — Cloudflare API tokens, TencentCloud SecretKeys, Slack/Discord/Telegram webhook URLs with embedded bot tokens, and Authorization header values — without any field-level redaction. Any authenticated admin who calls these endpoints receives every

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
go.senan.xyz/gonic

## Summary In gonic, the Subsonic API endpoints `/rest/deletePlaylist.view` and `/rest/getPlaylist.view` perform no per-resource authorization. Once authenticated as *any* user (admin or not), an attacker can: 1. **Delete any playlist owned by any other user** (including admin) by passing its `id`. 2. **Read the full contents** (name, comment, song list) of any other user's **private** (non-publ

💡 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)
go.senan.xyz/gonic

## Summary The maintainer's recent fix in [`6dd71e6a3c966867ef8c900d359a7df75789f410`](https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/commit/6dd71e6) (`fix(subsonic): enforce playlist ownership on getPlaylist/deletePlaylist`) added an ownership check based on `playlist.UserID`. However, `playlist.UserID` is derived from the *first path segment* of the attacker-controlled playlist ID, with no path containment o

💡 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)
go.senan.xyz/gonic

## Summary A logic error in `ServeCreateOrUpdatePlaylist` allows **any authenticated Subsonic user** (including non-admin) to write playlist M3U content to an attacker-controlled absolute filesystem path on the gonic host, and to create intermediate directories with `0o777` permissions. The bug is independent of the playlist ownership IDOR fixed in [`6dd71e6`](https://github.com/sentriz/gonic/co

💡 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)
推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

## 1. Description The `getRedirectURL` function in `oauth2.go:22-29` constructs the OAuth2 callback URL by concatenating the request's `Host` header with a fixed path, with **zero validation** of the Host header: ```go func getRedirectURL(c *gin.Context) string { scheme := "http://" referer := c.Request.Referer() if forwardedProto := c.Request.Header.Get("X-Forwarded-Proto"); forward

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

## 1. Description The Nezha dashboard exposes two endpoints that create long-lived WebSocket streams to monitored agents: - `POST /api/v1/terminal` → `createTerminal()` (terminal.go:27-67) - `POST /api/v1/file` → `createFM()` (fm.go:28-67) Both call `rpc.NezhaHandlerSingleton.CreateStream(streamId, ...)` which inserts a new `ioStreamContext` into an **unbounded** `map[string]*ioStreamContext` (

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

### Summary `fallbackToFrontend` in the dashboard's `NoRoute` handler treats any URL whose **raw string** starts with `/dashboard` as an admin-frontend asset request. The check uses `strings.HasPrefix`, not a path-segment match, so the input `/dashboard../data/config.yaml` is accepted; `strings.TrimPrefix` leaves `../data/config.yaml`; and `path.Join("admin-dist", "../data/config.yaml")` normalize

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

## Summary `PATCH /server/{id}` accepts and persists nonexistent `ddns_profiles` IDs for a member-owned server. If another user later creates a DDNS profile with one of those IDs, the DDNS worker resolves the stored ID and dispatches an update using the other user's DDNS profile configuration in the context of the attacker's server. This is a second-order authorization bypass: direct binding to

💡 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

### Summary An authenticated non-admin user who owns any server can create or update a NAT profile whose `domain` is equal to the dashboard's own HTTP Host (for example, `dashboard.example:8008`). The dashboard's top-level HTTP/gRPC multiplexer checks `NATShared.GetNATConfigByDomain(r.Host)` before dispatching requests to the dashboard API, frontend, or gRPC handler, so a member-controlled NAT pro

💡 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)
github.com/regclient/regclient

Credentials for a registry may be inadvertently leaked to external servers. A prerequisite for this attack is a malicious registry server, a malicious blob store, or a registry that does not restrict the external URLs for foreign blobs. ## Example attack A malicious registry serves an OCI image manifest containing a layer descriptor with a `urls` field pointing to an attacker controlled host: `

💡 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)
推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/authelia/authelia/v4

### Impact **CVSSv4 Baseline Score:** Low 2.4 **CVSSv4 Weighted Score:** Low 1.3 The full CVSSv4 Vector for this vulnerability is: > CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:H/IR:L/AR:L/MAV:N/MAC:H/MAT:P/MPR:L/MVC:L/MVI:N/MVA:N/MSC:L/MSI:N/MSA:N/S:N/AU:Y/R:U/V:D/RE:L/U:Amber **CVSSv3.1 Baseline Score:** Low 3.1 **CVSSv3.1 Overall Score:** Low 3.4 The full CVSSv

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

### Summary In nezha **v1.14.13–v1.14.14** and **v2.0.0–v2.0.9**, the WebSocket endpoints `GET /ws/terminal/:id` and `GET /ws/file/:id` authenticate the caller only by the presence of a valid stream UUID, with no ownership check tying that UUID to the user who created the stream. Any authenticated dashboard user (including a `RoleMember`) who learns a live stream UUID can attach to the session an

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | 影响边界/网络设备 (+5) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/blnkfinance/blnk

Blnk API key endpoints had an authorization issue that allowed non-master API keys to perform key-management actions outside their intended authorization boundary. In affected versions, API key operations trusted caller-controlled request values for owner and scope decisions. As a result, a non-master API key could potentially manage keys for another owner by supplying a different owner value, or

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

Previously, CVE-2024-45337 fixed an authorization bypass for misused ssh server configurations; if any other type of callback is passed other than public key, then the source-address validation would be skipped.

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh/knownhosts

Previously, a revoked 'SignatureKey' belonging to a CA was not correctly checked for revocation. Now, both the 'key' and 'key.SignatureKey' are checked for @revoked.

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

When writing data larger than 4GB in a single Write call on an SSH channel, an integer overflow in the internal payload size calculation caused the write loop to spin indefinitely, sending empty packets without making progress. The size comparison now uses int64 to prevent truncation.

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

The Verify() method for FIDO/U2F security key types (sk-ecdsa-sha2-nistp256@openssh.com, sk-ssh-ed25519@openssh.com) did not check the User Presence flag. Signatures generated without physical touch were accepted, allowing unattended use of a hardware security key. To restore the previous behavior, return a "no-touch-required" extension in Permissions.Extensions from PublicKeyCallback.

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

The RSA and DSA public key parsers did not enforce size limits on key parameters. A crafted public key with an excessively large modulus or DSA parameter could cause several minutes of CPU consumption during signature verification. This could be triggered by unauthenticated clients during public key authentication. RSA moduli are now limited to 8192 bits, and DSA parameters are validated per FIPS

💡 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

A malicious SSH peer could send unsolicited global request responses to fill an internal buffer, blocking the connection's read loop. The blocked goroutine could not be released by calling Close(), resulting in a resource leak per connection. Unsolicited global responses are now discarded.

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

An authenticated SSH client that repeatedly opened channels which were rejected by the server caused unbounded memory growth, eventually crashing the server process and affecting all connected users. Rejected channels are now properly removed from the connection's internal state and released for garbage collection.

💡 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

SSH servers which use CertChecker as a public key callback without setting IsUserAuthority or IsHostAuthority could be caused to panic by a client presenting a certificate. CertChecker now returns an error instead of panicking when these callbacks are nil.

💡 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

When an SSH server authentication callback returned PartialSuccessError with non-nil Permissions, those permissions were silently discarded, potentially dropping certificate restrictions such as force-command after a second factor succeeded. Returning non-nil Permissions with PartialSuccessError now results in a connection error.

💡 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh

An incorrectly placed cast from bytes to int allowed for server-side panic in the AES-GCM packet decoder for well-crafted inputs.

💡 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh/agent

When adding a key to a remote agent constraint extensions such as restrict-destination-v00@openssh.com were not serialized in the request. Destination restrictions were silently stripped when forwarding keys, allowing unrestricted use of the key on the remote host. The client now serializes all constraint extensions. Additionally, the in-memory keyring returned by NewKeyring() now rejects keys wit

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh/agent

The in-memory keyring returned by NewKeyring() silently accepted keys with the ConfirmBeforeUse constraint but never enforced it. The key would sign without any confirmation prompt, with no indication to the caller that the constraint was not in effect. NewKeyring() now returns an error when unsupported constraints are requested.

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 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)
golang.org/x/crypto/ssh/agent

For certain crafted inputs, a 'ed25519.PrivateKey' was created by casting malformed wire bytes, leading to a panic when used.

💡 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)
github.com/sigstore/rekor

## Description The `Package.Unmarshal()` function in `pkg/types/alpine/apk.go` decompresses the signature and control gzip members of an APK file into in-memory buffers without bounding the total decompressed size. The existing `max_apk_metadata_size` check (default 1MB) is only applied to individual tar entry header sizes after decompression completes, so it does not prevent a decompression bomb

💡 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)
github.com/github/github-mcp-server

### Summary When running in HTTP mode with --lockdown-mode enabled, the RepoAccessCache is implemented as a process-global singleton initialized with the first authenticated user's GraphQL client. All subsequent requests from different users share this singleton and their lockdown-related GraphQL queries are executed using the first user's credentials. The singleton is never updated to reflect la

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
👥 作者: Minjae Bae, Carter Yagemann

本文研究Go生态系统中的自动化供应链攻击活动。攻击者将合法Go模块重新打包到其控制的所有者名下,并在其中嵌入混淆代码,作为导入触发的下载器。作者通过两项互补分析进行测量:a) 在GitHub上手动搜索2,113个仓库;b) 使用自行实现的去混淆AST扫描器(GOAST)对1230万个索引条目进行大规模扫描。结果发现2289个合法Go模块的恶意版本。研究表明,仅依赖GitHub的搜索无法完全识别攻击范围,且仅在受影响代码仍存在于平台时有效。此外,基于代理的测量显示,在后续发现为GitHub不可观察(即已删除或暂停)的工件中,至少99.4%仍可通过Go代理检索。在披露后,GitHub移除了684个恶意仓库,Google Go团队修复了1377个模块版本。本文的核心贡献在于揭示了现有清除措施的局限性以及恶意模块在代理中的持久性,为Go供应链安全提供了新的测量方法。

💡 推荐理由: 该研究首次量化了Go模块供应链攻击中恶意模块在官方代理中的持久性,揭示了即使GitHub上被删除后,绝大多数恶意版本仍可通过代理下载,对依赖Go模块的开发者构成长期威胁。

🎯 建议动作: 研究跟进

排序因子: 来自 arXiv 其他板块 (+2) | 命中热门研究主题 (+2) | Community 数据源 (+1) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.5)
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin

### Description The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixe

💡 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)
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin

## Summary The `ValidateArgumentType` RPC endpoint in `service/internal/api/api.go` does not perform any authentication or authorization checks. Unlike all other data-returning API endpoints, it does not call `auth.UserFromApiCall` or `checkDashboardAccess`. When `AuthRequireGuestsToLogin` is enabled (the security-conscious configuration), this endpoint remains accessible to unauthenticated users

💡 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)
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin

## Summary OliveTin's template engine uses a **single shared `text/template.Template` instance** (`tpl` package-level variable in `service/internal/tpl/templates.go`) across all goroutines. Every action execution calls `tpl.Parse(source)` followed by `t.Execute()` on this shared instance with no synchronization. When two or more actions execute concurrently (which is the normal case — each `ExecR

💡 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)
github.com/opentofu/opentofu

## Summary If a symlink already exists under the `.terraform/providers` directory where a provider package needs to be installed, `tofu init` would follow that symlink and install the new package content into it. If an attacker can coerce an operator into running `tofu init` in a directory whose contents are attacker-controlled, they can include such a symlink along with instruction to install a

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
go.opentelemetry.io/ebpf-profiler

### Summary An unprivileged process can easily trigger the `processPIDEvents` goroutine to be blocked indefinitely, preventing the goroutine from analyzing any new ELF file. The goroutine stays blocked in the `openat2` syscall forever and the profiler can no longer work properly, it is a denial of service. ### Impact The impact is limited to denial-of-service on the ebpf-profiler agent: - There

💡 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)
github.com/xyproto/algernon

### Summary When algernon is started with `--domain` (or `--letsencrypt`, which silently turns on `--domain` at `engine/flags.go:372`), the request handler resolves the served directory by joining the configured `--dir` with the value of the client-supplied `Host` header. The join is performed by `filepath.Join` with no validation, so a `Host: ..` header walks one level above the document root. S

💡 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)
gogs.io/gogs

### Summary The Gogs Mirror Settings functionality provide an alternative way from the well protected New Migration functionality for any authenticated users to import local repositories. This issue stems from a lack of validation of SaveAddress function. ### Details Here is the function implementation of the secure New Migration functionality. Here is the function implementation of the Mirror

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

## Summary In **Gogs 0.14.1**, organization team member management can be performed via **GET requests without CSRF protection**. If a victim who is an **organization owner** is logged in and is tricked into visiting a crafted link, an attacker-controlled user can be added to the **Owners** team. As a result, the attacker gains **organization owner–equivalent privileges**. --- ## Description W

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

## Summary In Gogs 0.14.1, `GET /attachments/:uuid` returns the raw attachment file **without verifying whether the requester has view permission for the associated Issue/Comment/Release or the repository**. In a test environment with `REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW = false`, we confirmed that **an unauthenticated user can download attachments belonging to a private repository**. ## Description `/attachme

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

# Summary Although `.ipynb` previews are sanitized on the server side via `/-/api/sanitize_ipynb`, the inserted content is **re-rendered on the client side without sanitization** using `marked()` on elements with the `.nb-markdown-cell` class. During this process, links containing schemes such as `javascript:` can be regenerated. As a result, when a victim views an attacker-crafted `.ipynb` file

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

### Summary Special template of issue index pattern may cause panic. ### Details in internal/markup/markup.go ```go link = fmt.Sprintf(`%s`, com.Expand(metas["format"], metas), m) ``` Issue index pattern is rendered to link with `com.Expand`. However, `com.Expand` is not safe. ```go i = strings.Index(template, "}") if s, ok := match[template[:i]]; ok { ``` when `{` is found but `}` not foun

💡 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)
推荐 9.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/juev/nebula-mesh

`internal/store/sqlite.go:1177,1192,1221,1245` — the `enrollment_tokens.token` column holds the raw UUID token. `ConsumeToken` does `WHERE token = ?` against the raw string. Compare with `operator_api_keys.key_hash`, which is SHA-256 hex (constructed in `internal/api/middleware.go:51-53`). ## Affected All released versions up to v0.3.0. ## Threat model Read access to `nebula-mgmt.db`: backup, sn

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
INFO
ADVISORY 2026-06-22

Gogs has SSRF in webhook deliveries

推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

### Summary The fix for CVE-2022-1285 prevents adding webooks or running webhooks with URLs with a hostname that resolves in localCIDRs. However, webhooks still follow redirects allowing to access hostname inside localCIDRs. This was already communicated in the initial report but it looks like there was a bit of a miscommunication. ### Details By creating a webook pointing to any URL that will

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/inspektor-gadget/inspektor-gadget

## Summary A malicious container can crash or destabilize the privileged Inspektor Gadget process when a **gadget using USDT probes** is deployed. The vulnerability is in the USDT note parser (`pkg/uprobetracer/usdt.go`) which is invoked when a gadget with a `SEC("usdt/...")` section attaches to a target binary. An unprivileged process can place a crafted ELF binary at the expected library path,

💡 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)
github.com/containers/buildah

### Impact When processing a build contexts or `add`/`copy` instructions, a malicious server serving a Git repository or a tar archive file can cause files outside of the build context directory to be included in the build context or copied into the build. ### Patches Fixed in Buildah 1.44 and 1.43.2.

💡 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)
github.com/opencontainers/runc

### Impact When setting up the container rootfs, `setupPtmx` and `setupDevSymlinks` call `os.Remove` and `os.Symlink` with a `filepath.Join` string which allow an image with `/dev` as a symlink to trick runc into deleting files called `ptmx` on the host or creating a hardcoded set of symlinks with specific names and targets in an arbitrary pre-existing host directory. Please note that this issue

💡 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)
gogs.io/gogs

## Summary When `ENABLE_REVERSE_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION` is enabled, Gogs accepts the configured authentication header (default: `X-WEBAUTH-USER`) directly from client requests without validating that the request originated from a trusted reverse proxy. Any remote attacker who can reach the Gogs service can forge this header to impersonate any user or trigger automatic account creation, completely b

💡 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)
gogs.io/gogs

### Summary A malicious user with rights to create a new file on a repository or wiki page can trigger a denial of service condition in which the pages containing the listing of files will return HTTP error 500 and render the web interface unusable for the repository or wiki. ### Details The issue is present in file `internal/route/repo/wiki.go` and `internal/route/repo/view.go` where the pages t

💡 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)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

### Summary Gogs renders Jupyter notebook files (`.ipynb`) using [jsvine/notebookjs](https://github.com/jsvine/notebookjs), but the version is outdated, missing patches for known XSS vulnerabilities. ### Details Gogs uses version 0.4.2 of notebookjs to render Jupyter notebook files: https://github.com/gogs/gogs/blob/7297aee50d4c115836c7de8a3a233daaef87b911/templates/base/head.tmpl#L47 The lat

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/authzed/spicedb

### Impact Under concurrency, `CheckPermission` and `CheckBulkPermissions` can return `PERMISSIONSHIP_HAS_PERMISSION` for a (resource, permission, subject) whose correct answer is `PERMISSIONSHIP_CONDITIONAL_PERMISSION`. You are impacted if **all** of the following hold: 1. Your schema has a permission combining relations with an intersection or exclusion, where a subject reaches it throu

💡 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)
github.com/openbao/openbao

On OpenBao 2.5.4 and 2.5.2(and likely earlier versions also), an authenticated caller with write access to `transit/keys/*` can crash the OpenBao server by issuing a single key-creation request that combines an asymmetric `type` (`rsa-*`, `ecdsa-*`, `ed25519`) with `derived: true`. The server returns no HTTP response and the process terminates (exit code 2). This is a remote, low-complexity denial

💡 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)
github.com/openbao/openbao

### Summary A user that is granted namespace management (`/sys/namespaces`) capabilities within a non-root namespace ("the victim namespace") can abuse special handling of the literal path `"root"` in namespace path canonicalization to manage the victim namespace itself. ### Details Several endpoints under `/sys/namespaces/*` accept a namespace path segment that is canonicalized and then appen

💡 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)
github.com/openbao/openbao

### Summary OpenBao users with access to the `sys/leases/revoke/:lease_id` endpoint in any namespace can revoke leases in any other namespace as long as the lease identifier is known to them, bypassing ACLs that should apply for cross-namespace revocations. ### Impact OpenBao's namespaces provide multi-tenant separation. A tenant who intentionally leaks lease identifiers can have their lease an

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/openbao/openbao

## 1. Description ### Component `sdk/helper/ldaputil/client.go` — the shared LDAP utility library used by both the LDAP authentication backend and OpenLDAP secrets engine to construct LDAP search filters and bind DNs. ### Root Cause The LDAP utility contains a **function selection error** that causes incorrect escaping of user-controlled input in LDAP filter construction. Two lines construct t

💡 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)
github.com/axllent/mailpit

## Summary The remediation shipped in mailpit v1.29.2 for [GHSA-mpf7-p9x7-96r3](https://github.com/axllent/mailpit/security/advisories/GHSA-mpf7-p9x7-96r3) (CVE-2026-27808) is incomplete. The `tools.IsInternalIP` deny-list relies on Go's stdlib classification helpers (`IsLoopback`, `IsPrivate`, `IsLinkLocalUnicast`, `IsLinkLocalMulticast`, `IsUnspecified`, `IsMulticast`) plus an inline CGNAT rang

💡 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)
INFO
ADVISORY 2026-06-19

Open Redirect Bypass in miniflux-v2

推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
miniflux.app/v2

### Summary The URL restrictions in `miniflux-v2` can be bypassed by attackers, leading to an open redirect vulnerability. ### Details Normally, the redirect URL needs to be validated using `IsRelativePath`. There are some security measures in place, such as requiring relative paths, prohibiting host and schema entries, and rejecting proof-of-concept (PoC) entries like `//fushuling.com`. Howe

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/traefik/traefik/v3

## Summary There is a medium severity vulnerability in Traefik's Kubernetes Ingress NGINX provider that causes affected routes to fail open. When an Ingress explicitly enables BasicAuth or DigestAuth through the supported `nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/auth-type` and `auth-secret` annotations, but the referenced auth Secret cannot be resolved or parsed, Traefik logs the resolution error, skips inst

💡 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)
go.qbee.io/transport

### Impact The go.qbee.io/transport library is affected by a symlink-chain path traversal vulnerability in its extractTar routine. The library's path validation is strictly lexical and fails to account for on-disk symlinks created earlier in the extraction process. Consequently, a crafted tar archive can be used to write or overwrite files one directory level above the intended extraction path. I

💡 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)
github.com/grafana/grafana-operator/v5, github.com/grafana/grafana-operator

We have released version 5.24.0 of the Grafana Operator. This patch includes a MODERATE severity security fix for a path traversal/privilege escalation vulnerability in the Grafana Operator. ### Summary The Grafana Operator supports loading dashboards & library panels using the jsonnet data templating language. The jsonnet expression is evaluated in the context of the operator manager pod. ###

💡 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)
github.com/crossplane/crossplane/v2, github.com/crossplane/crossplane

## Summary Crossplane allows package signature verification to be configured via the `ImageConfig` mechanism. When enabled, the package manager uses cosign to verify that packages are correctly signed before pulling and installing them. When a package is installed using a tag reference (e.g., a semantic version), a malicious OCI registry could serve a correctly signed image for verification, the

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.0) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/0xERR0R/blocky

## Summary Blocky accepts and caches forged DNS answers while `dnssec.validate: true` is enabled. The issue has two related exploit paths: 1. **Basic DNSSEC validation bypass.** If an untrusted upstream returns an unsigned positive answer for a DNSSEC-signed public domain, Blocky classifies the response as `Insecure` solely because the response contains no RRSIG records. It does not first check

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/daytonaio/daytona

## Summary A sandbox volume reference (`volumeId`, which may also be a volume name) was forwarded to the runner and used to build the host bind-mount source path without confinement. A reference containing path-traversal sequences could in principle resolve the mount source outside the intended per-volume base directory. ## Impact Had the traversal been reachable, an authenticated user could have

💡 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)
github.com/projectcapsule/capsule

### Summary Capsule v0.13.2 webhook rules contain `namespace/finalize` (singular) instead of `namespaces/finalize` (plural). K8s requires plural. The finalize defense from CVE-2026-30963 fix is absent. ### Details PUT to `/api/v1/namespaces//finalize` has resource=namespaces (plural). The singular rule never matches. `matchPolicy: Equivalent` does not compensate. ### PoC Confirmed on kind + Caps

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/go-gitea/gitea

### Details Despite the validation within `urlIsRelative` in `modules/httplib/url.go`, an open redirect is still possible due to usage of directory traversal sequences plus a back-slash in the "redirect_to" parameter. ### PoC When a user uses this URL to login: `https://gitea.com/user/login?redirect_to=/a/../\example.com` They would be redirected to `example.com` upon a successful login to th

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary Me again. Gitea's built-in 3D file viewer (powered by Online3DViewer) is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting (XSS) through crafted `.gltf` files. When a glTF file declares an unsupported required extension, Online3DViewer generates an error message containing the extension name and Gitea inserts it into the DOM using `innerHTML` without sanitization. An attacker who can push a `

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary Many authenticated self routes under `/api/v1/user/...` do not enforce the `public-only` token restriction. As a result, a token or OAuth grant marked `public-only`, but otherwise carrying the route-required read/write scope category, can access or modify private account resources through self routes. The canonical private-user endpoint correctly rejects the same tokens, for example `

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary The API endpoint `POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/forks` only checks `IsOrgMember()` when a user forks a repository into an organization, but does not check `CanCreateOrgRepo()`. The web UI fork handler correctly checks both. This allows a read-only organization member — in a team with `can_create_org_repo=false` — to create repositories in the organization namespace via the API. The

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/daytonaio/daytona

### Summary A cross-tenant authorization flaw in Daytona's notification WebSocket gateway allowed any authenticated user to subscribe to another organization's realtime notification channel and passively receive that organization's events. ### Impact The notification gateway's JWT handshake joined a client-supplied organization identifier to the corresponding notification room without verifying t

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 12.4
Conf: 50%
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary PR #37698 added checkDownloadTokenScope to /raw/*, /media/*, and attachment download web endpoints. The /archive/* endpoint (repo.Download in routers/web/repo/repo.go:372) was not included in the fix. This endpoint accepts OAuth2 tokens via webAuth.AllowOAuth2 (registered at routers/web/web.go:1649-1652) but does not call checkDownloadTokenScope or CheckRepoScopedToken. A personal acc

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary Three Gitea API endpoints — `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issue_templates`, `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issue_config` and `GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issue_config/validate` — read files from the repository's **Code** default branch (`.gitea/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/*` and `issue_config.yaml`) and return their contents, but are registered **without** the `reqRepoReader(unit.TypeCode)` authorization mi

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary Two related issues in the token public-only scope enforcement introduced by PR #32204 (CVE-2025-68941 fix). A public-only scoped API token can access private organization data. ## Issue 1: /user/orgs missing checkTokenPublicOnly() `routers/api/v1/api.go` line 1599: ```go m.Get("/user/orgs", reqToken(), tokenRequiresScopes( auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser, auth_model.A

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

## Summary Any authenticated low-privilege user with read access to a repository can push arbitrary commits directly to that repository, bypassing all write-access checks. ## Vulnerability Gitea's "Allow edits from maintainers" PR option can be abused via reverse-fork PRs: 1. The web UI PR-create endpoint binds `allow_maintainer_edit=true` **without** verifying that the submitter has write acc

💡 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)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary Gitea fails to enforce OAuth2 access token scopes when the token is submitted via HTTP Basic authentication instead of a Bearer token. An OAuth2 application granted only `read:user` can use the same token as `Authorization: Basic base64(:x-oauth-basic)` and perform write actions, including modifying profiles, adding email addresses, creating repositories, and deleting repositories 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) | 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
gogs.io/gogs

**Vulnerability type:** Path Traversal **Impact:** DoS **Exploitation prerequisite:** authorized user **Description:** As an authorized user, an intruder can dictate the value which is passed to the `git diff` command which, together with bypassing the filtering of the passed value, allows the user to bypass the target directory and write the result of the comparison to any arbitrary path. **Resea

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/rclone/rclone

## Summary `rclone rcd --rc-serve` accepts unauthenticated `GET` and `HEAD` requests to paths of the form: ```text /[remote:path]/object ``` The `remote` value is parsed from the URL and passed to normal backend initialization. Inline remote configuration can set backend options that execute local commands during initialization. As a result, a single unauthenticated `GET` or `HEAD` request can

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.8) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
code.gitea.io/gitea

### Summary Gitea v1.26.1 enforces repository-scoped access-token permissions on repository operations. In the Git Smart HTTP path, however, this check runs only when the token is presented via HTTP Basic authentication — `CheckRepoScopedToken()` returns early unless `ctx.IsBasicAuth` is true — so the same token sent as `Authorization: Bearer ` bypasses the scope check entirely. As a result, a PA

💡 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)
github.com/daytonaio/daytona

### Summary Daytona's organization role update and delete endpoints authorized the caller as an owner of the organization named in the request path, but resolved and mutated the target role by its identifier alone, without verifying the role belonged to that organization. An authenticated user who owns any organization (organizations are self-service) could therefore modify the permissions of, or

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2, github.com/caddyserver/caddy

### Summary Caddy’s `stripHTML` template function cannot reliably remove all HTML tags from input strings. Certain malformed HTML, such as `img src=x onerror=alert()>`, can bypass the tag-stripping logic, potentially leaving dangerous content in the output if it is later rendered as HTML. This may allow client-side XSS in cases where untrusted strings are rendered unsafely. --- ### Details The v

💡 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)
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2, github.com/caddyserver/caddy

### Summary `forward_auth copy_headers` deletes the exact client-supplied identity header before copying the trusted value from the auth gateway. But when the request later goes through `php_fastcgi`, Caddy normalizes HTTP headers into CGI variables by replacing `-` with `_`. This lets a client send an underscore alias that survives the `forward_auth` delete step but becomes the same PHP/FastCGI

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2, github.com/caddyserver/caddy

### Summary On Windows, Caddy `path` matchers treat `/private\secret.txt` as outside `/private/*`, but `file_server` later resolves the same request path as `private\secret.txt` on disk. An unauthenticated remote client can request `/private%5csecret.txt` and bypass Caddy path-scoped auth/deny routes protecting `/private/*`. ### Details The mismatch is between two Caddy code paths: - `MatchPa

💡 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)
github.com/daytonaio/daytona

### Summary Sandbox previews that were switched from public to private could remain reachable without authentication for a short period after the change, due to a cached visibility state that was not invalidated when the sandbox's visibility changed. ### Impact When a sandbox owner changed a preview from public to private, the preview proxy could continue serving unauthenticated requests to that

💡 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)
Traefik, github.com/traefik/traefik/v2, github.com/traefik/traefik

## Summary There is a critical vulnerability in Traefik's HTTP/3 (QUIC) TLS configuration selection that allows unauthenticated clients to bypass router-specific mTLS enforcement. When HTTP/3 is enabled on an entrypoint, the TLS handshake selects the applicable TLS configuration through an exact, case-sensitive lookup on the SNI value, which fails to match wildcard host patterns (e.g., `*.example

💡 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)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

> [!NOTE] > **This feature has been disabled by default for all installations from v2.33.8 onwards, including for existent installations**. To exploit this vulnerability, the instance administrator must turn on a feature and ignore all the warnings about known vulnerabilities. We're publishing this new advisory to make it clear that all vulnerabilities concerning this feature are disclosed. > > Fo

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2, github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser

### Summary File Browser's public share handlers rebase the share owner's filesystem root to the shared directory and then evaluate descendant paths against the owner's global and per-user rules using the rebased relative path instead of the original path relative to the owner's scope. As a result, an attacker who knows a public directory share URL can access files and subdirectories that the own

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2, github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser

### Summary filebrowser builds the download-as-zip / download-as-tar archive entry names with `filepath.ToSlash`, which on a Linux host is a no-op for backslashes (`\` is only a path separator on Windows). A file whose name contains Windows-style traversal (`..\..\..\evil.txt`) is accepted by the resource handlers, stored on the Linux filesystem with a literal backslash name, and then emitted **ve

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2, github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser

## Summary File Browser enforces per-user scope with `afero.NewBasePathFs(afero.NewOsFs(), scope)`, set up in `users/users.go`. This blocks lexical `../` traversal, but it does not stop the HTTP file handlers from following symbolic links before they open, serve, write, share, or list a file. As a result, a scoped user — and in some cases an unauthenticated public-share recipient — can cross the

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2, github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser

### Summary Unchecked passwords maximums allow for an arbitrarily large password to be passed into the login API. This spikes CPU and memory, and after testing, crashes, heavily lags any container created, and has even made my docker daemon start to send errors with status code 500 even after the container was destroyed. ### Details When sending JSON in the body of the request to the route `api/l

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2, github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser

### Summary This is similar vulnrability of **`CVE-2026-0035`**, which was fixed in Android `MediaProvider` with **high** severity. In the original Java issue, `MediaStore.createWriteRequest()` accepted attacker-controlled URIs and created a future grant even when the referenced media item did not exist yet. The Android fix added an existence check before creating the request. `filebrowser/filebr

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser, github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2

### Summary A low-privileged authenticated user of filebrowser (with `create` + `delete` permissions in their own isolated scope) can silently destroy share-link records belonging to any other user — including the administrator — by performing a legitimate DELETE on a file in their own directory whose logical path happens to be a byte-prefix of another user's stored `share.Link.Path`. The file con

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4

### Summary A vulnerability in Fleet's Apple MDM commands listing endpoint allowed authenticated users with the lowest-privilege Observer role to extract sensitive values from joined database tables — including host enrollment secrets and Apple Push Notification Service (APNS) tokens — through a cursor-based binary search oracle. The endpoint accepted a user-supplied `order_key` parameter that wa

💡 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)
github.com/fleetdm/fleet/v4

### Summary A vulnerability in Fleet's labels host-listing endpoint allowed authenticated users with the lowest-privilege Observer role to extract host enrollment secrets (`node_key`, `orbit_node_key`) through a cursor-based binary search oracle. The endpoint accepted a user-supplied `order_key` parameter that was not validated against a column allowlist, permitting sort order to be driven by sen

💡 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)
github.com/radius-project/radius

# Radius Controller May Delete a Container Resource via an Injected Deployment Annotation (Multi-Tenant Installs) ## Summary A configuration-validation issue in the Radius Kubernetes controller can cause it to issue a `DELETE` for the container resource referenced by a tampered `radapp.io/status` annotation on a Deployment. It follows the "Confused Deputy" pattern. Real-world impact is bounded a

💡 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)
github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/awssql/v2, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/xray, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/aws-secrets-manager, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/custom-endpoint, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/federated-auth, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/iam, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/mysql-driver, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/okta, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/pgx-driver, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/otlp, github.com/aws/aws-advanced-go-wrapper/auth-helpers

Aurora PostgreSQL is a fully managed relational database engine that's compatible with PostgreSQL. An issue in Aurora PostgreSQL using the AWS Go Wrapper waa identified, see CVE-2026-11401. Impact An issue in AWS Wrappers for Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL may allow for privilege escalation to rds_superuser role. A low privilege authenticated user can create a crafted function that could be executed

💡 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)
github.com/openfga/openfga

### Description In OpenFGA, when iterator caching is enabled, two distinct check requests can produce the same cache key, leading to OpenFGA reusing an earlier cached result for a subsequent request. ### Preconditions This applies if the following preconditions are present: - FGA runs with SharedIteratorCache enabled, - FGA runs with ListObjectsIteratorCache enabled. ### Fix Upgrade to version

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard

### Impact On a DevGuard API instance with one or more **public assets**, any authenticated user — including users from a different organization with no membership or role in the affected org/project — can create, update, reapply, and delete **VEX rules** on those public assets. The same flaw affects the other vulnerability-triage write endpoints exposed under a public asset, including: - VEX ru

💡 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)
github.com/basekick-labs/arc

### Summary Arc registers Go's `net/http/pprof` handlers at `/debug/pprof/*` via `app.Use(pprof.New())` in `internal/api/server.go`, and `/debug/pprof` is added to `PublicPrefixes` in `cmd/arc/main.go`. The auth middleware short-circuits before the token check on prefix match, so the endpoints are reachable without any authentication. ### Impact Any network-reachable caller (no token required)

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/traefik/traefik/v2, github.com/traefik/traefik/v3

## Summary There is a high severity vulnerability in Traefik's `StripPrefix` middleware that allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass route-level authentication and authorization. When a public router matches on a `PathPrefix` rule and applies the `StripPrefix` middleware, a request path containing `..` or its percent-encoded form `%2e%2e` can match the public route at routing time and then,

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/udr

### Summary The free5GC UDR accepts arbitrary non-3GPP ueId values in the EE subscription creation and query flows because the regular expression used for validation ends with the catch-all alternative |.+. This causes the validation logic to accept any non-empty string rather than restricting input to expected SUPI/GPSI-style formats. In a tested deployment, a crafted value such as ARBITRARY_STRI

💡 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)
github.com/dexidp/dex

## Summary `server/handlers.go::handleTokenExchange` (lines 1804-1893) does not call `isConnectorAllowed(client.AllowedConnectors, connID)` before issuing tokens, while sibling handlers do. This is a per-client connector ACL gap on the token-exchange endpoint; the redirect-flow paths enforce the same field correctly. ## Affected code path `handleTokenExchange` reads `connector_id` from the requ

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/basekick-labs/arc

### Summary Arc's user-SQL validator (`internal/api/query.go:ValidateSQLRequest`) blocked only `read_parquet(` and `arc_partition_agg(` via regex denylist. The broader DuckDB I/O function family — `read_csv_auto`, `read_csv`, `read_json`, `read_json_auto`, `read_text`, `read_blob`, `glob`, `parquet_metadata`, `parquet_schema`, `read_xlsx`, etc. — was not blocked. RBAC table-reference extraction i

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/juev/nebula-mesh

`internal/api/audit.go:12` — `handleGetAuditLog` does no admin check. The route is bearer-auth gated only; any operator API key returns the full audit log via `store.ListAuditEntries` (up to limit=1000). This includes cross-tenant actor names, host/CA/operator IDs, action timestamps, and masked-IP entries from rate-limit refusals — enough surface for a tenant to enumerate the server's activity, in

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/juev/nebula-mesh

Every `/ui/*` POST / PUT / PATCH / DELETE route processes the request as soon as the session cookie validates. `SameSite=Lax` on the session cookie prevents most cross-site form submits but does not protect: - top-level form-submit navigations from third-party pages (some browsers still send Lax cookies on top-level POSTs) - same-registrable-domain attackers (sibling-subdomain XSS, subdomain take

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/juev/nebula-mesh

The `/api/v1/*` route surface trusts the bearer token alone for authorisation on most endpoints. The codebase itself admits this at `internal/api/hosts.go:384`: *"API trusts the bearer token for authorisation; per-CA ownership is enforced only in the Web layer."* The Web UI gates state-changing routes through `loadAccessibleCA` (`internal/web/cas.go`); CA-management endpoints in `internal/api/cas

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/juev/nebula-mesh

None of the response paths in `internal/web/` or `internal/api/` set the standard browser-security headers. `grep` for `Content-Security-Policy`, `X-Frame-Options`, `Strict-Transport-Security`, `X-Content-Type-Options`, `Referrer-Policy` returns zero matches across the codebase. ## Impact The admin UI signs CA certificates, mints API keys (returned inline once per page), displays TOTP QR codes, a

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/juev/nebula-mesh

`internal/configgen/generator.go:86,108,119` interpolates the operator-supplied `ListenHost` and `TunDevice` fields raw into a `text/template` that produces the agent's `config.yml`. `internal/web/advanced.go:20-35` accepts both with only `strings.TrimSpace` — no character or shape validation. ## Exploit An operator (or attacker with any operator key, given the cross-tenant CRUD advisory) sets `a

💡 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)
github.com/julien040/anyquery/plugins/chrome, github.com/julien040/anyquery/plugins/brave, github.com/julien040/anyquery/plugins/edge, github.com/julien040/anyquery/plugins/safari

# AppleScript/JXA Code Injection via Unescaped URL in macOS Chrome Plugin | Field | Value | | ---------------- | ----- | | Repository | julien040/anyquery | | Affected version | 0.4.4 (commit 0abd460) | | Vulnerability | CWE-94 — Improper Control of Generation of Code | | Severity | High | ## Summary The `chrome_tabs` plugin (and equivalent Brave/Edge/Safari variants

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/klever-io/klever-go

## Summary Every transaction gossiped on the klever-go P2P network is decoded and validated synchronously inside the libp2p pubsub topic-validator callback. The validator `txVersionChecker.CheckTxVersion` dereferences `tx.RawData.Version` with no nil check. A protobuf `Transaction` whose embedded `RawData` sub-message is omitted decodes to `RawData == nil`, so validating it triggers a nil-pointer

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/klever-io/klever-go

### Summary The Klever seednode REST API starts a Gin engine with `Engine.Run(restAPIInterface)`. In Gin v1.9.1, `Engine.Run` calls Go's default `http.ListenAndServe`, which constructs an HTTP server without application-level `ReadHeaderTimeout`, `ReadTimeout`, or `MaxHeaderBytes` limits. An unauthenticated client that can reach a REST listener bound with Klever's documented `--rest-api-interfac

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/klever-io/klever-go

### Summary `networkMessenger.directMessageHandler` in `network/p2p/libp2p/netMessenger.go` spawns a fresh goroutine for every incoming direct message before the antiflood layer makes an admission decision. There is no semaphore, throttler, or bound on concurrent in-flight spawns. A single connected libp2p peer can open a `DirectSendID` stream and send well-formed `TopicMessage` envelopes with v

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/klever-io/klever-go

## Summary The account-data trie syncers leak bounded throttler slots on error paths in `syncDataTrie()`. Each failed trie sync permanently consumes one slot from the `NumGoRoutinesThrottler`, and the slot is never returned unless the sync succeeds or the root hash was already present. I confirmed this on the current default branch `develop` at commit `9640d63` (observed on May 20, 2026).

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/fluxcd/source-controller

### Impact An actor with the ability to influence the contents of a bucket referenced by a `Bucket` resource can cause source-controller to write fetched object data to paths outside the per-reconciliation working directory. The corruption surface is bounded by source-controller's own and downstream Flux controllers' digest verification: source-controller verifies stored artifact digests during

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/quic-go/quic-go

## Summary An attacker can cause excessive memory allocation in quic-go's HTTP/3 client and server implementations by sending a QPACK-encoded HEADERS frame that decodes into a large trailer field section with many unique field names and/or large values. The implementation builds an `http.Header` for the corresponding `http.Request` or `http.Response`, while only enforcing limits on the size of th

💡 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

#### Summary Nezha accepts service-monitor `TaskResult` messages from an authenticated agent based only on whether the reported service ID exists. The dashboard authenticates the agent and derives the reporter server ID from the gRPC stream, but the service-monitor result worker does not verify that the reporter server was selected for that service, belongs to the service owner, or was actually a

💡 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

#### Summary An authenticated Nezha dashboard user can create or update a DDNS profile with provider `webhook` and configure an arbitrary `webhook_url`, HTTP method, request body, and headers. When DDNS is triggered for a server that uses that profile, the dashboard process sends the configured request with `utils.HttpClient` without the SSRF protections used by notification webhooks. This allow

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/authelia/authelia/v4

### Impact **CVSSv4 Baseline Score:** Moderate 6.3 **CVSSv4 Weighted Score:** Low 2.9 The full CVSSv4 Vector for this vulnerability is: > CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:L/IR:L/AR:L/MAV:N/MAC:H/MAT:N/MPR:N/MUI:N/MVC:L/MVI:N/MVA:N/MSC:N/MSI:N/MSA:N/S:N/AU:Y/R:U/V:D/RE:L/U:Green **CVSSv3.1 Baseline Score:** Low 3.7 **CVSSv3.1 Overall Score:** Medium 4.0

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
goauthentik.io

### Summary authentik's SAML Source ACS endpoint is vulnerable to XML Signature Wrapping when validating upstream SAML responses. An attacker with any account at the upstream IdP can reuse a valid signed assertion to authenticate as another federated user. ### Patches authentik 2026.5.1, 2026.2.4 and 2025.12.6 fix this issue. ### Impact Affected: authentik deployments using a SAML S

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/go-git/go-git/v5, github.com/go-git/go-git/v6

### Impact Several denial-of-service issues were identified in `go-git` when parsing maliciously crafted Git repository data. An attacker may craft a malicious `.pack`, `.idx` or loose objects that causes an application using an affected version of `go-git` to panic or consume excessive resources. This can lead to denial of service in applications that use `go-git` to clone, fetch, open, or othe

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 9.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/metal3-io/cluster-api-provider-metal3

## Summary CAPM3 is Metal3's Cluster API (CAPI) provider for baremetal provisioning in Kubernetes. Multiple cross-namespace access control vulnerabilities in Cluster API Provider Metal3 allow users with permissions to create or modify CAPM3 resources in one namespace to reference, read, or claim resources belonging to other namespaces. ## Patched In - **v1.13.0** (main branch — all fixes includ

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers

### Summary In the runtime-rs standalone virtio-fs path, verified here with QEMU (and verified with Cloud Hypervisor too), Kata Containers runs host `virtiofsd` as root with: ``` --sandbox none --seccomp none ``` If an attacker has root-equivalent execution inside the Kata guest VM, they can send raw FUSE requests directly to the host `virtiofsd`. With the tested runtime-rs virtio-fs configurat

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec

## Summary The CrowdSec AppSec component fails to read the HTTP request body for any request whose `Content-Length` is not positive — most notably HTTP/1.1 requests using `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` and HTTP/2 requests sent without a `content-length` header. Coraza is then evaluated against an empty body, so every WAF rule targeting `REQUEST_BODY`, `BODY_ARGS`, `ARGS_POST`, `JSON`, or `XML` sile

💡 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)
推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec

The LAPI router uses `gin-contrib/gzip` with `DefaultDecompressHandle` globally (`pkg/apiserver/controllers/controller.go`). This middleware decompresses incoming request bodies without enforcing a maximum decompressed size. The endpoints `/v1/watchers` or `/v1/watchers/login` require no authentication. An attacker can send small gzip-compressed JSON payloads that, when decompressed, result in h

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers

## Summary Kata Containers ships with a default configuration that allows pod creators to inject arbitrary command-line arguments into the virtiofsd process through the `io.katacontainers.config.hypervisor.virtio_fs_extra_args` pod annotation. By injecting `-o source=/` along with `--no-announce-submounts` and `--sandbox=none`, an attacker can override the virtiofsd shared directory to serve the

💡 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

Nezha Monitoring 是一个开源监控系统,其仪表板 WebSocket 端点存在授权绕过漏洞(CVE-2026-47124)。任何经过认证的非管理员成员都可以连接到 `/api/v1/ws/server` WebSocket 并接收所有服务器的遥测数据,包括其他用户拥有的服务器。正常情况下,REST API `/api/v1/server` 会通过 `HasPermission` 按用户过滤服务器列表,但 WebSocket 处理函数 `serverStream` 仅检查用户是否已认证,未验证用户角色或服务器所有权。对于已认证用户,它会调用 `GetSortedList()` 返回所有服务器,并且不隐藏主机详情,导致敏感信息泄露。泄露的数据包括服务器 ID、名称、主机 IP、平台版本、Agent 版本、CPU/GPU 名称、内存/磁盘/交换总量、架构、虚拟化信息、启动时间、CPU 负载、内存/磁盘/交换使用率、网络传输/速度、运行时间、TCP/UDP/进程计数、温度以及 GPU 利用率等。该漏洞影响所有默认部署的 Nezha 仪表板,攻击者只需拥有一个非管理员账户即可利用。

💡 风险点: 漏洞允许任何已验证的非管理员用户跨租户窃取所有服务器的详细遥测数据,包括主机敏感信息,可能导致内部网络拓扑泄露和进一步攻击。

🎯 建议动作: 升级 Nezha Monitoring 至已修复版本,或应用官方补丁;限制非管理员用户的 WebSocket 访问权限;审查并加强 API 授权逻辑,确保 WebSocket 端点也进行对象级权限检查。

排序因子: 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 厂商评估 High (+3) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

Nezha监控系统存在一个严重的权限绕过漏洞(CVE-2026-46716)。该组件是一个开源的服务器监控和运维管理平台,支持管理员(RoleAdmin)和普通成员(RoleMember)两种角色。漏洞位于定时任务相关的API端点(POST /api/v1/cron 和 PATCH /api/v1/cron/:id),这些端点本应仅限管理员访问,但实际使用了仅验证JWT令牌的`commonHandler`中间件,而未使用检查管理员角色的`adminHandler`。此外,在创建定时任务时,权限校验逻辑存在空列表绕过:当`Servers`字段为空数组时,`CheckPermission`函数直接返回`true`。攻击者可以以普通成员身份创建一个`Cover=CronCoverAll`且`Servers=[]`的定时任务,并附上任意shell命令。任务触发时,该命令会被推送到全局`ServerShared`中的所有服务器,包括其他租户(管理员或其他成员)的服务器。攻击者通过配置自定义通知组,可以将命令执行结果发送到外部Webhook,从而实现跨租户的远程代码执行。该漏洞影响`50dc8e660326b9f22990898142c58b7a5312b42a`及之前版本。

💡 风险点: 任何拥有普通成员权限的用户(包括通过OAuth2自注册的用户),都可以利用此漏洞获得所有被监控服务器的远程控制权,实现跨租户横向移动,严重威胁数据安全和系统可用性。

🎯 建议动作: 立即升级到修复版本;如无法立即升级,可临时移除或禁用`POST /api/v1/cron`和`PATCH /api/v1/cron/:id`路由,或限制普通成员的定时任务创建权限;审计当前已存在的定时任务,确认是否存在可疑的命令或覆盖范围。

排序因子: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 90%
github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/backend

Arcane 后端项目中,`PUT /api/environments/{id}/templates/variables` 端点用于写入全局 `.env.global` 文件,该文件中的变量会被所有项目的 Docker Compose 文件引用。该端点缺少管理员权限检查,仅验证了用户身份(通过 Bearer JWT 或 API Key),但未执行角色校验(未调用 `checkAdmin` 函数)。因此,任何经过身份验证的非管理员用户都可以调用此端点,覆盖全局环境变量。攻击者可通过设置恶意值(如 `REGISTRY`、`IMAGE`、`DATABASE_URL`、`SECRET_KEY` 等)来劫持其他用户的容器镜像拉取(导致供应链远程代码执行)、窃取数据库凭证或破坏所有项目。与代码库中其他管理员敏感端点(如用户管理、事件管理、设置等)不同,这些端点都通过 `checkAdmin` 进行了角色检查,而此端点遗漏了。UI 层面已将“变量”功能对非管理员隐藏,但后端未强制实施。该漏洞编号为 CVE-2026-47125,影响 GitHub 上的 getarcaneapp/arcane/backend 组件。

💡 风险点: 该漏洞允许任意认证用户覆盖全局变量,可能导致供应链攻击、凭据窃取或服务中断。由于影响所有项目且无需高权限,一旦被利用将造成严重危害。

🎯 建议动作: 1. 立即升级 Arcane 后端到修复版本(关注官方公告)。2. 检查系统全局变量配置是否存在异常修改。3. 审计访问日志,确认是否有非授权用户调用该端点。4. 在补丁发布前,可考虑在网络层面限制对 API 的访问或临时移除该端点。

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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

## Summary `createAlertRule` and `createService` (and their `update*` siblings) accept `FailTriggerTasks []uint64` and `RecoverTriggerTasks []uint64` — IDs of cron tasks to fire when the alert/service trips. The validation function only validates the alert's `Rules.Ignore` server map; it never checks that the cron task IDs in `FailTriggerTasks` / `RecoverTriggerTasks` belong to the caller. When

💡 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)
github.com/nezhahq/nezha

## Summary nezha's dashboard supports two user roles: `RoleAdmin` (Role==0) and `RoleMember` (Role==1). The notification routes `POST /api/v1/notification` and `PATCH /api/v1/notification/:id` are wired through `commonHandler` rather than `adminHandler` — so a `RoleMember` user can call them. These handlers synchronously `Send()` an HTTP request to a user-controlled URL and reflect the *entire* r

💡 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)
github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser/backend

## Summary `publicPatchHandler` in `backend/http/public.go` joins user-controlled `fromPath` and `toPath` body fields with the trusted `d.share.Path` BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because `filepath.Join` collapses `..` segments during the join, the sanitizer in `resourcePatchHandler` never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The sam

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
boxlite, boxlite-cli, @boxlite-ai/boxlite, github.com/boxlite-ai/boxlite/sdks/go

#### Summary Boxlite is a sandbox service that allows users to create lightweight virtual machines (Boxes) and run OCI containers within them. Boxlite allows users to specify the OCI image used by containers in the sandbox. However, when processing tar entries in OCI images, Boxlite does not account for the possibility that entries may be symlinks pointing to absolute paths. An attacker can craft

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 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)
推荐 15.4
Conf: 50%
boxlite, @boxlite-ai/boxlite, github.com/boxlite-ai/boxlite/sdks/go, boxlite-cli

#### Summary Boxlite is a sandbox service that allows users to create lightweight virtual machines (Boxes) and launch OCI containers within them to run untrusted code. One of the core security features claimed by Boxlite is the ability to mount host directories in read-only mode (read_only=True) into the VM via the virtiofs protocol (a host-guest shared filesystem protocol designed specifically

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/containerd/containerd, github.com/containerd/containerd/v2

### Impact A bug was found in containerd where containers launched with a numeric `User` directive that cannot be parsed as a 32-bit integer are incorrectly treated as a username. If a crafted image provides an `/etc/passwd` file mapping this large numeric string to root, the container ultimately runs as root (UID 0). This allows the Kubernetes `runAsNonRoot` restriction to be bypassed, causing un

💡 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)
github.com/authzed/spicedb

### Impact Users are impacted if: - They have a caveat structure with a nested list, e.g.: ```zed caveat shape(x list) { x == [["a"], "b"] } ``` - Their system exercises that caveat with either [CheckBulkPermission](https://buf.build/authzed/api/docs/main%3Aauthzed.api.v1#authzed.api.v1.PermissionsService.CheckBulkPermissions) or else [LookupResources](https://buf.build/authzed/api/d

💡 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)
github.com/opentofu/opentofu

### Impact Unauthenticated denial of service. ### Summary When installing provider or module packages from attacker-controlled servers, the server may cause `tofu init`to enter an infinite loop sending garbage data to that server. Those who depend on modules or providers served from untrusted third-party servers may experience denial of service due to `tofu init` failing to complete successfull

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/xyproto/algernon

### Summary The SSE event server's `Access-Control-Allow-Origin` response header was hardcoded to the wildcard `*` regardless of the caller's `Origin`. Because `EventSource` does not preflight and does not send cookies, the wildcard is sufficient to let any third-party page the developer visits open a cross-origin `EventSource` to the SSE port and read the live filename stream from JavaScript. Co

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/xyproto/algernon

### Summary The SSE event server bound to `0.0.0.0:5553` on Linux/macOS by default because the platform-dependent host default in `engine/flags.go:39-46` set `host = ""` for non-Windows, and `utils.JoinHostPort("", ":5553")` resolves to `":5553"` — a Go `http.Server.Addr` of `":5553"` listens on every interface. On Windows the same code chose `"localhost"`, binding loopback only. The result was

💡 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)
推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
pkg.jsn.cam/caddy-defender

### Impact Caddy Defender used `r.RemoteAddr` when evaluating whether a request should be blocked. `RemoteAddr` is the address of the immediate peer connected to Caddy. In deployments where Caddy is behind a trusted proxy, CDN, or load balancer, the immediate peer is usually the proxy, not the original client. Caddy resolves the original client address into its `client_ip` request variable after

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser/backend, github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser

### Impact Some sensitive info -- such as source and path can get exposed. ### Patches Update to the latest version ### Workarounds no

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/tomwright/dasel/v3

### Summary `dasel`'s selector lexer enters a non-terminating loop when tokenizing an unterminated regex pattern such as `r/abc`. A 2-byte input (`r/`) is sufficient to cause the tokenizer to consume 100% CPU on one core indefinitely. I confirmed the issue on `v3.3.1` (`fba653c7f248aff10f2b89fca93929b64707dfc8`) and on `master` commit `0dd6132e0c58edbd9b1a5f7ffd00dfab1e6085ad`. I also verified t

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/tomwright/dasel/v3

### Summary `dasel`'s selector lexer panics with an index-out-of-range error when tokenizing a quoted string that ends with a trailing backslash (e.g., `"\` or `'\`). A 2-byte input causes an immediate process crash via Go runtime panic. I confirmed the issue on `v3.3.1` (`fba653c7f248aff10f2b89fca93929b64707dfc8`) and on `master` commit `0dd6132e0c58edbd9b1a5f7ffd00dfab1e6085ad`. I also verifie

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/coder/coder/v2, github.com/coder/coder

## Summary `azureidentity.Validate()` verifies that the PKCS#7 signer certificate chains to a trusted Azure CA but never verifies the PKCS#7 signature itself. An attacker can embed a legitimate Azure certificate alongside arbitrary content e.g. `{"vmId":""}` and the forged `vmId` will be accepted returning the victim workspace agent's session token. **No authentication is required.** The attacke

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 16.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/coder/coder/v2, github.com/coder/coder

## Summary Unauthenticated semi-blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via the Azure instance identity endpoint (`POST /api/v2/workspaceagents/azure-instance-identity`). An external attacker can force the Coder server to issue HTTP GET requests to arbitrary internal or external hosts by submitting a crafted PKCS#7 signature. The server does not return the target's response body, but error messa

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/Kuadrant/mcp-gateway

## Summary The MCP router (ext_proc) exposes an `initialize`-method code path that, when a request carries an `mcp-init-host` header, bypasses the gateway JWT session validator and rewrites the upstream `:authority` header to whatever the caller chooses, gated only by a single shared header value (`router-key`). The shared value is * a literal string (`secret-api-key`) baked into `cmd/mcp-broke

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/cli/cli/v2, github.com/cli/cli

### Summary A security vulnerability has been identified in GitHub CLI that could allow terminal escape sequence injection when users view GitHub Actions workflow logs using `gh run view --log` or `gh run view --log-failed`. ### Details The vulnerability stems from the way GitHub CLI handles raw Actions log output. The `gh run view --log` and `gh run view --log-failed` commands stream workflow

💡 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)
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2

## AI Disclosure I used an LLM to help review the source code, reason about attack surface, and help draft and refine this report. I manually validated the finding by reproducing it locally, confirming the vulnerable code path, and verifying the HTTP behavior with `curl -v`. ## Summary Caddy's remote admin access control performs path authorization using prefix matching: - [`admin.go

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
INFO
ADVISORY 2026-05-19

Caddy CVE-2026-30852 Fix Bypass

推荐 14.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2

# ## TL;DR CVE-2026-30852 fixed double expansion in `vars_regexp` when the variable key is a placeholder (e.g. `{http.vars.x}`). The fix does NOT protect literal key names (e.g. `tenant_id`). An attacker injects `{env.AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY}` or `{file./etc/passwd}` via a request header → Caddy expands it on the second pass → secrets leaked in response headers. **Affected:** Caddy v2.11.0 throu

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kong/kubernetes-ingress-controller/v3, github.com/kong/kubernetes-ingress-controller/v2, github.com/kong/kubernetes-ingress-controller

## Summary A vulnerability in the Kong Ingress Controller (KIC) allows for the unauthorized exfiltration of TLS certificates and private keys across Kubernetes namespace boundaries. In "managed" mode (where the `GatewayClass` lacks an unmanaged annotation), the Gateway TLS translator skips critical status checks. This bypass allows the translator to fetch Secrets from any namespace KIC watches, e

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary A remotely reachable integer overflow in OBI's memcached text protocol parser can crash the OBI process and cause denial of service. When parsing memcached storage commands such as `set`, `add`, `replace`, `append`, `prepend`, or `cas`, OBI accepts extremely large `` values and adds the payload delimiter length without checking for overflow. A crafted request with `` set to `math.MaxI

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary Malformed MongoDB wire messages can trigger uncaught panics in the MongoDB TCP parser, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to crash the telemetry agent and cause a denial of service. The parser operates on raw attacker-controlled network payloads before the input is fully validated, so a single crafted message can terminate telemetry collection for the affected process or node.

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary OBI's log enricher mishandles `writev` buffers by reading only the first `iovec` entry but using the total `iov_iter.count` as the copy length. When log injection is enabled, a crafted multi-segment `writev` call can make OBI read and overwrite memory beyond the first segment. ### Details In [bpf/logenricher/logenricher.c#L50](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ebpf-ins

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary The custom `CappedConcurrentHashMap` introduced for Java TLS state tracking never removes keys from its insertion-order queue when entries are deleted. In long-running instrumented JVMs, repeated connection churn can therefore grow the queue without bound and exhaust heap memory. ### Details The vulnerable implementation is in [pkg/internal/java/agent/src/main/java/io/opentelemetry/

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary The Java TLS ioctl probe reads user-controlled ioctl pointers with `bpf_probe_read` instead of `bpf_probe_read_user`. An instrumented local process can therefore point OBI at kernel memory and cause that memory to be copied into telemetry. ### Details The vulnerable path is in [bpf/generictracer/java_tls.c](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ebpf-instrumentation/blob/36

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary The per-CPU message-buffer fallback path uses a 256-byte backup buffer but preserves the original payload size, which can be up to 8KB. If a CPU mismatch occurs, OBI can read beyond the fallback buffer and leak adjacent memory into telemetry. ### Details https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ebpf-instrumentation/blob/032473449b53d9f02ec4619d4f5b84e6a81db362/bpf/common/http

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary OBI replays BPF probe hits into histogram observations by looping once per recorded run count. On busy systems, the run-count delta can become very large, causing the metrics exporter to spend excessive CPU time in a tight loop every collection interval. ### Details The vulnerable loop is in [pkg/export/prom/prom_bpf.go](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ebpf-instrumen

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary The Postgres protocol parser assumes `BIND` message payloads contain a valid NUL-terminated portal name. A crafted empty or unterminated payload can make OBI slice beyond the end of the captured buffer and panic. ### Details The vulnerable logic is in [pkg/ebpf/common/sql_detect_postgres.go](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-ebpf-instrumentation/blob/d5691806adc98008ba

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary OBI exports raw Redis error text as the span status message. Because Redis error replies can contain attacker-controlled or sensitive values, this behavior can exfiltrate tokens, PII, or other confidential input into telemetry backends and inject untrusted text into downstream analysis systems. ### Details In [pkg/ebpf/common/redis_detect_transform.go](https://github.com/open-teleme

💡 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)
go.opentelemetry.io/obi

### Summary OBI's replacement ELF parser trusts section offsets, counts, and string offsets from the executable file. A crafted local ELF can make OBI dereference invalid section pointers or slice past string tables, causing the agent to panic while determining the process language. ### Details `matchExeSymbols `iterates over sections and uses offsets/symbol names from the unvalidated `fastelf

💡 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)
github.com/docker/docker, github.com/moby/moby/v2, github.com/moby/moby

## Summary A race condition during `docker cp` mount setup allows a malicious container to redirect a bind mount target to an arbitrary host path, potentially overwriting host files or causing denial of service. ## Details When copying files into a container, the daemon sets up a temporary filesystem view by bind-mounting volumes into a private mount namespace. During this setup, the mount dest

💡 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)
github.com/docker/docker, github.com/moby/moby/v2, github.com/moby/moby

## Summary A race condition during `docker cp` mount setup allows a malicious container to create empty files or directories at arbitrary absolute paths on the host filesystem. This advisory covers the race during mountpoint creation. The related race during the subsequent mount syscall is tracked in GHSA-rg2x-37c3-w2rh ## Details When copying files into a container, the daemon sets up a tempo

💡 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)
github.com/moby/moby/v2, github.com/docker/docker, github.com/moby/moby

## Summary When a user uploads a compressed archive into a container, a malicious image can execute arbitrary code with daemon (host root) privileges. ## Details When handling `PUT /containers/{id}/archive` requests with compressed archives, the daemon decompresses them using external system binaries. Due to incorrect ordering of operations, these binaries are resolved from the container's file

💡 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)
github.com/DatanoiseTV/tinyice

## Title Missing authentication on WebRTC ingest endpoint allows unauthenticated stream injection in TinyIce ## Ecosystem / Package - **Ecosystem:** `Go` (or "Other" — TinyIce is shipped as a Go binary, not a Go module published to a registry) - **Package name:** `github.com/DatanoiseTV/tinyice` ## Affected versions ``` >= 0.8.95, = 2.5.0 ``` ## Severity - **CVSS 3.1 base score:** 7.4 (High

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/amir20/dozzle

## Summary In a default dozzle deploy (the documented quickstart, no `DOZZLE_AUTH_PROVIDER` set), `POST /api/notifications/test-webhook` is reachable without authentication and forwards an attacker-controlled URL into a `WebhookDispatcher` that: - Sends an HTTP POST to the supplied URL with attacker-controlled request headers, and - Returns the response status code AND up to 1MB of the response

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/iskorotkov/avro/v2

# CPU Exhaustion in Avro Decoder via Unbounded Block-Count Iteration ## Summary The Avro array and map decoders looped over an attacker-controlled block-count value without checking the underlying reader's error state inside the loop body. `Reader.ReadBlockHeader` returns the count as a Go `int`, which is 64-bit on `amd64` / `arm64` targets — so a producer can declare a block of up to `math.MaxI

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/iskorotkov/avro/v2

# Integer Overflow in Avro Decoder ## Summary Several Avro decoder paths read attacker-controlled 64-bit values from the wire format and either narrowed them to platform-sized `int` before bounds-checking, or summed them with overflow-prone signed-`int` arithmetic. On 32-bit targets (`GOARCH=386`, `arm`, `mips`, `wasm`, etc.), the truncation paths can silently bypass byte-slice limits, select th

💡 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)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/iskorotkov/avro/v2

# Memory Exhaustion via Unbounded Map Allocations in Avro Decoder ## Summary The Avro map decoder accepted attacker-controlled block-element counts from the wire format and grew the destination map without enforcing an upper bound. The slice decoder already had `Config.MaxSliceAllocSize` for the equivalent attack against arrays; the map decoder had no analogous limit, so a producer could declare

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/arnika-project/arnika

### Summary Three medium-severity issues in arnika affecting the UDP key-rotation protocol, PQC key file handling, and KMS TLS client. All require specific preconditions to exploit and do not allow direct code execution or immediate key extraction. A self-contained PoC is attached. ### Details 1) ACK timestamp not validated: `udpserver.go:185` `udpClient()` verifies HMAC and packet type but never

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
goshs.de/goshs/v2

### Summary The `--tunnel` / `-t` flag opens an outbound SSH connection to `localhost.run:22` with `HostKeyCallback: ssh.InsecureIgnoreHostKey()`. The Go documentation for that function states verbatim: *"It should not be used for production code."* With the callback disabled the client accepts any host key the server presents, so an attacker who can intercept the operator's TCP connection to `lo

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/dunglas/frankenphp

### Summary The `splitPos()` function in [`cgi.go`](https://github.com/php/frankenphp/blob/main/cgi.go) misuses `golang.org/x/text/search` with `search.IgnoreCase` when the request path contains a non-ASCII byte. Two distinct flaws in that fallback let an attacker mislead FrankenPHP into treating a non-`.php` file as a `.php` script. In any deployment where the attacker can place content into a f

💡 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)
github.com/slack-go/slack

```go func NewSecretsVerifier(header http.Header, secret string) (SecretsVerifier, error) { hash := hmac.New(sha256.New, []byte(secret)) // raw secret, no precondition } ```

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary SiYuan's Bazaar (community marketplace) renders the `name` and `version` fields of a package's `plugin.json` (and the equivalent `theme.json` / `template.json` / `widget.json` / `icon.json`) into the Settings → Marketplace UI without HTML escaping. The kernel-side helper `sanitizePackageDisplayStrings` in `kernel/bazaar/package.go` HTML-escapes only `Author`, `DisplayName`, and `Descr

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary SiYuan publish-mode Reader can mutate Conf and SQL index via 8 ungated APIs `POST /api/graph/getGraph`, `POST /api/graph/getLocalGraph`, `POST /api/sync/setSyncInterval`, `POST /api/storage/updateRecentDocViewTime`, `POST /api/storage/updateRecentDocCloseTime`, `POST /api/storage/updateRecentDocOpenTime`, `POST /api/storage/batchUpdateRecentDocCloseTime`, and `POST /api/search/update

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
gitlab.com/uniget-org/cli

I discovered a command injection vulnerability in uniget that allows arbitrary command execution through the metadata loading and version check mechanism. ### Summary A command injection vulnerability exists in uniget due to unsafe execution of the `check` field from metadata files using `/bin/bash -c`. Because the `check` field is loaded directly from untrusted JSON metadata without validation

💡 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)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary The advisory `GHSA-c77m-r996-jr3q` patched `getBookmark` so that, when invoked by a publish-mode `RoleReader`, results are filtered through `FilterBlocksByPublishAccess` to remove entries from password-protected / publish-ignored notebooks. Four sibling search handlers in the same file did not receive the equivalent treatment and continue to expose metadata across the publish-access b

💡 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)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

### Summary `POST /api/tag/getTag` is registered with `model.CheckAuth` only, omitting both `model.CheckAdminRole` and `model.CheckReadonly`, despite the handler performing a configuration write that is normally guarded by both. Any authenticated user — including publish-service `RoleReader` accounts and `RoleEditor` accounts on a read-only workspace — can call this endpoint with a `sort` argumen

💡 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)
github.com/obot-platform/obot

## Summary If you have the MCP Server ID, you can connect to the MCP server even if you don't have permissions to the server. The MCP gateway endpoint `/mcp-connect/{mcp_id}` does not enforce Access Control Rules (ACRs). Any authenticated Obot user who possesses an MCP Server ID can connect to that server through the gateway — including making tool calls — regardless of whether they are a member

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | 影响边界/网络设备 (+5) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/traefik/traefik/v3, github.com/traefik/traefik/v2, github.com/traefik/traefik

## Summary There is a medium severity vulnerability in Traefik's Kubernetes Gateway API provider that allows a tenant with `HTTPRoute` creation permissions to expose the REST provider handler, bypassing the `providers.rest.insecure=false` setting. The Gateway provider accepts any `TraefikService` backend reference whose name ends with `@internal`, making it possible to route traffic to `rest@inte

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/go-git/go-billy/v5, github.com/go-git/go-billy/v6

### Impact Multiple components may improperly handle crafted or malformed input, resulting in panics, infinite loops, uncontrolled recursion, or excessive resource consumption. These issues arise from insufficient validation and missing safety mechanisms such as cycle detection, recursion limits, or defensive handling of unexpected states when processing untrusted repository data and filesystem s

💡 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)
github.com/klever-io/klever-go

## Summary A remote, unauthenticated denial-of-service vulnerability in `Batch.Decompress` (`data/batch/batch.go`) allows any peer that participates in a topic served by `MultiDataInterceptor` to allocate multi-gigabyte heaps on the receiving node from a sub-50 KiB gossip payload. A single packet is sufficient to OOM-kill a validator with conventional memory provisioning. Fleet-wide application a

💡 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)
github.com/esm-dev/esm.sh

### Summary A Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability exists in the esbuild plugin's handling of the `browser` field in `package.json`. An attacker can publish an npm package that causes the server to read and return arbitrary files from the host filesystem during the build process. ### Details The vulnerable code is in the `OnResolve` callback of the esbuild plugin: https://github.com/esm-de

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 12.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/esm-dev/esm.sh

### Impact - Arbitrary File Write – An attacker can cause the server to write data to any file path it has write permission for. - Privilege Escalation / RCE – By overwriting critical binaries or scripts, the attacker can execute arbitrary code with the server’s privileges. ### Exploit The legacy router first retrieves a response from `legacyServer`, parses the incoming request path, and ultimat

💡 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)
github.com/hahwul/dalfox/v2

## Summary `ParameterAnalysis` in `pkg/scanning/parameterAnalysis.go` runs two sequential worker stages that both write to the same `results` channel. The channel is correctly closed after the first stage completes (`close(results)` at line 438), but the second stage — which processes POST-body parameters (`dp`) — is then launched with the same already-closed channel as its output. When a scanned

💡 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)
github.com/hahwul/dalfox/v2

## Summary When dalfox is run in REST API server mode, the `output`, `output-all`, and `debug` fields in `model.Options` are JSON-tagged and deserialized directly from the attacker's request body, then propagated unchanged through `dalfox.Initialize` into the scan engine's logging path. The logger opens the attacker-supplied path with `os.O_APPEND|os.O_CREATE|os.O_WRONLY` and writes scan log line

💡 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)
github.com/hahwul/dalfox/v2

## Summary When dalfox is run in REST API server mode, the `custom-payload-file` field in `model.Options` is JSON-tagged and deserialized directly from the attacker's request body, then propagated unchanged through `dalfox.Initialize` into the scan engine. The engine passes the value to `voltFile.ReadLinesOrLiteral`, which reads lines from any file path accessible to the dalfox process and embeds

💡 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)
github.com/hahwul/dalfox/v2

# GHSA: Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via `found-action` in Dalfox Server Mode ## Summary When dalfox is started in REST API server mode (`dalfox server`), the server binds to `0.0.0.0:6664` by default and requires no API key unless the operator explicitly passes `--api-key`. Because `model.Options` — including `FoundAction` and `FoundActionShell` — is deserialized directly from attacker

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/safedep/gryph

Gryph implements logging levels that determine what content is logged to a local sqlite database. The README incorrectly mentions that the default log level is minimal while it is standard. Source code review shows sensitive `file-write` content remains in the stored `payload` as `ContentPreview`, `OldString`, or `NewString` at the default `standard` logging level and at `full`. This leads to log

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF mounts the `nnef-pfdmanagement` route group without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A network attacker who can reach NEF on the SBI can use a forged or arbitrary bearer token (e.g. `Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token`) to read PFD application data via `GET /applications` and `GET /applications/{appID}`, and to create or delete PFD change-notification subscr

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/smf

### Summary free5GC's SMF mounts the `UPI` management route group without OAuth2/bearer-token authorization middleware. A network attacker who can reach SMF on the SBI can hit `UPI` endpoints with no `Authorization` header at all, and the requests reach the SMF business handlers. In the running Docker lab this was directly demonstrated for read (`GET /upi/v1/upNodesLinks`), write (`POST /upi/v1/up

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/free5gc/smf

### Summary free5GC's SMF mounts the `UPI` management route group without inbound OAuth2 middleware (same root cause as the broader UPI auth gap reported in free5gc/free5gc#887). On top of that, the `DELETE /upi/v1/upNodesLinks/{upNodeRef}` handler unconditionally dereferences `upNode.UPF` after the type-guarded async release, even though `AN`-typed nodes are constructed without a `UPF` object. 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) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF mounts the `nnef-oam` route group without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A network attacker who can reach NEF on the SBI can hit the OAM route with no `Authorization` header at all and the handler returns `200 OK`. The current OAM handler is a stub that returns `null`, but the structural defect is route-group-scoped: the entire OAM route group has no inbound a

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF mounts the `3gpp-traffic-influence` API without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A network attacker who can reach NEF on the SBI can create, read, patch, and delete traffic-influence subscriptions either with no `Authorization` header at all, or with a forged bearer token (e.g. `Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token`). This includes creating `AnyUeInd=true` sub

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.4) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/nrf

### Summary free5GC's NRF root SBI endpoint `POST /oauth2/token` contains a parser-level type-confusion bug family. The handler in `NFs/nrf/internal/sbi/api_accesstoken.go` reflects over `models.NrfAccessTokenAccessTokenReq`, special-cases only plain `string` and `NrfNfManagementNfType` fields, and treats every other field as if it were a single `models.PlmnId`. The parsed `*models.PlmnId` is then

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/udr

### Summary free5GC's UDR `nudr-dr` `DELETE /subscription-data/{ueId}/{servingPlmnId}/ee-subscriptions/{subsId}/amf-subscriptions` handler panics on a single authenticated request against a fresh UDR instance when the supplied `ueId` does not exist in `UESubsCollection`. The processor checks `value, ok := udrSelf.UESubsCollection.Load(ueId)` and sets a `404 USER_NOT_FOUND` problem-details on the m

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/udr

### Summary free5GC's UDR `nudr-dr` `DELETE /subscription-data/{ueId}/{servingPlmnId}/ee-subscriptions/{subsId}/amf-subscriptions` handler contains a nil-pointer dereference reachable from a single authenticated request, after one preparatory authenticated EE-subscription create. The handler checks `_, ok = UESubsData.EeSubscriptionCollection[subsId]` and sets a `404` problem-details on the miss p

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF `PATCH /3gpp-pfd-management/v1/{afId}/transactions/{transId}/applications/{appId}` handler panics with a nil-pointer dereference when the upstream UDR call fails AND the consumer wrapper returns `err != nil` together with a nil `*ProblemDetails`. The handler's `errPfdData != nil` branch builds its own `problemDetailsErr` correctly, but immediately after it reads `problemD

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/smf

### Summary free5GC's SMF mounts the `UPI` management route group without inbound OAuth2 middleware (same root cause as free5gc/free5gc#887). The `POST /upi/v1/upNodesLinks` create-or-update handler accepts attacker-controlled JSON and passes it directly into `UpNodesFromConfiguration()`, which calls `logger.InitLog.Fatalf(...)` on several validation failures. One confirmed path is the UE-IP-pool

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF mounts the `nnef-callback` route group without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A forged or arbitrary bearer token (e.g. `Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token`) is enough to reach the SMF-callback handler -- the callback body is parsed and dispatched into NEF business logic instead of being rejected at the auth boundary. Same root cause as the other NEF SBI fi

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF terminates the entire process when a stored PFD-subscription `notifyUri` cannot be reached. In `PfdChangeNotifier.FlushNotifications()`, the notifier calls `NnefPFDmanagementNotify(...)` and on any delivery error invokes `logger.PFDManageLog.Fatal(err)`, which is `os.Exit(1)`-equivalent in Go. An attacker who can create a PFD subscription with an attacker-chosen `notifyUr

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/bsf

### Summary free5GC's BSF `PUT /nbsf-management/v1/subscriptions/{subId}` handler has an unsynchronized write on the global `Subscriptions` map. The handler first reads the map under `RLock()` via `BSFContext.GetSubscription(subId)`, but if the subscription does not exist, `ReplaceIndividualSubcription()` writes back to the same map directly without taking the mutex (`bsfContext.BsfSelf.Subscripti

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/pcf

### Summary free5GC's PCF `POST /npcf-policyauthorization/v1/app-sessions` handler panics on a single authenticated request whose `ascReqData.suppFeat == "1"` (enabling traffic-routing feature negotiation) and whose `medComponents` entries supply an `afAppId` but NO `AfRoutReq`. The create path then calls `provisioningOfTrafficRoutingInfo(smPolicy, appID, routeReq, ...)` with `routeReq == nil` and

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/pcf

### Summary free5GC's PCF `POST /npcf-smpolicycontrol/v1/sm-policies` handler (`HandleCreateSmPolicyRequest`) panics with a nil-pointer dereference when a downstream OpenAPI consumer call (UDR lookup) returns `404 Not Found` and the consumer wrapper returns `err != nil` together with a nil response struct. The handler logs the OpenAPI error and continues executing instead of returning, then derefe

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/nef

### Summary free5GC's NEF mounts the `3gpp-pfd-management` API without inbound OAuth2/bearer-token authorization. A network attacker who can reach NEF on the SBI can create, read, and delete PFD-management transaction state with a forged or arbitrary bearer token (e.g. `Authorization: Bearer not-a-real-token`). The route group is also reachable even when the running config's `ServiceList` does not

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.4) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/sigstore/gitsign

## Summary `gitsign verify` and `gitsign verify-tag` re-encode commit/tag objects through go-git's `EncodeWithoutSignature` before checking the signature, instead of verifying against the raw git object bytes. For malformed objects with duplicate `tree` headers, git-core and go-git parse different trees: git-core uses the first, go-git uses the second. A signature crafted over the go-git-normaliz

💡 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)
github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ in-toto-golang and in-toto-python both support glob patterns in artifact rules to indicate the artifacts that a rule applies to. Both support negations in character classes to indicate what should *not* be matched, but they used different operators to indicate the negation. in-toto-python uses `!` while in-toto-golang used `^`. A lay

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
volcano.sh/volcano

### Impact The Volcano webhook server does not enforce a size limit on incoming HTTP request bodies. Any in-cluster pod that can reach the webhook endpoint may send an arbitrarily large request body, potentially causing the webhook server to be killed by OOM. All Volcano deployments with the webhook server exposed to in-cluster traffic are affected. ### Patches This issue will be fixed in the fol

💡 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)
github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel

## Summary The tooltip mouseover handler in `app/src/block/popover.ts` reads `aria-label` via `getAttribute` and passes it through `decodeURIComponent` before assigning to `messageElement.innerHTML` in `app/src/dialog/tooltip.ts:41`. The encoder used at the producer side, `escapeAriaLabel` in `app/src/util/escape.ts:19-25`, only handles HTML special characters (`"`, `'`, `` element, and the `oner

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/Ech0

## Summary Access tokens created with the "never expire" option have no `exp` JWT claim. Three independent revocation mechanisms fail for this token type. Logout at `internal/handler/auth/auth.go:154` and `:163` dereferences `claims.ExpiresAt.Time`, panicking on the nil field so the token never hits the blacklist. `RevokeToken` at `internal/repository/auth/auth.go:45-50` skips when `remainTTL 0

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/Ech0

## Summary `parseAndValidateClientRedirect` at `internal/service/auth/auth.go:448` validates OAuth client-redirect URIs by comparing only scheme and host against the admin-configured allowlist. Path, query, and fragment are ignored. The initiator at `/oauth/:provider/login` embeds the caller-supplied `redirect_uri` verbatim into the signed state JWT without any validation at login time. Alice sub

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/ech0

## Summary The `fetchPeerConnectInfo` function in `internal/service/connect/connect.go:214-239` uses `httpUtil.SendRequest` (no SSRF protection) instead of `SendSafeRequest` (which has `ValidatePublicHTTPURL` with private IP blocking). This allows authenticated users to make the server request arbitrary URLs including internal/cloud metadata endpoints. ## Details In `internal/service/connect/conn

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/Ech0

## Summary `PUT /api/echo/like/:id` at `internal/router/echo.go:12` is registered on `PublicRouterGroup` with no authentication and no rate limit. Anonymous callers increment the `fav_count` counter on any echo (including private echoes) by UUID, repeat the request without deduplication, and trigger a database write plus a four-key cache invalidation on every call. Alice harvests echo UUIDs from

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/ech0

### Summary **No authentication** is required to invoke **`PUT /api/echo/like/:id`**. The handler is registered on the **public** router group. The service increments **`fav_count`** for the given echo **without** checking identity, **without** a per-user limit, and **without** CSRF tokens. A remote client can **arbitrarily inflate** like metrics with repeated requests. ### Description **Root c

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/Ech0

## Summary The public RSS/Atom feed at `/rss` renders two attacker-controlled surfaces without HTML escaping. Tag names flow through `fmt.Appendf(renderedContent, "#%s", tag.Name)` at `internal/service/common/common.go:120`, and the Markdown renderer at `internal/util/md/md.go` does not set the `html.SkipHTML` flag, so raw HTML blocks in echo content pass through unmodified. The resulting Atom ``

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/lin-snow/Ech0

## Summary The `Comment` model serializes its `Email` field through the public comment-listing API. `internal/model/comment/comment.go:33` uses `json:"email"`, while adjacent PII fields (`IPHash`, `UserAgent`) correctly use `json:"-"`. The public endpoints `GET /api/comments?echo_id=X` and `GET /api/comments/public?limit=N` both live on `PublicRouterGroup` with no authentication. Alice retrieves

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend

#### Summary No minimum length or entropy is enforced on the `JWT_SECRET` configuration value. The application accepts any base64-decodable secret regardless of size, including secrets as short as 1 byte. HS256 secrets below 32 bytes are brute-forceable offline, allowing attackers to recover the signing key and forge valid JWTs for arbitrary users. --- #### Impact An attacker who captures a s

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/enchant97/note-mark/backend

### Description The Note Mark application allows authenticated users to upload assets to notes via `POST /api/notes/{noteID}/assets`, where the asset filename is provided through the `X-Name` HTTP request header. This value is stored directly in the database without any sanitization or validation - no path separator filtering, no directory traversal sequence rejection, and no use of `filepath.Bas

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/gittuf/gittuf

## Summary An attacker with push access to gittuf's Reference State Log (RSL) can roll back the current policy to any previous policy trusted by the current set of root keys. ## Impact gittuf determines the policy to load by inspecting the RSL. Except for the very first policy (which is automatically trusted given gittuf's TOFU model, or verified against manually specified keys), whenever an RS

💡 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)
github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser

## Summary FileBrowser Quantum serves inline SVG files without a `Content-Security-Policy` header, allowing embedded JavaScript in SVG files to execute when accessed via public share links. Verified on v1.3.0-stable. ## Affected product - **Product:** FileBrowser Quantum (`gtsteffaniak/filebrowser`) - **Verified version:** v1.3.0-stable - **Docker image:** gtstef/filebrowser:latest - **Affecte

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser

### **Summary** Attacker-controlled path input is joined with a trusted base path prior to sanitization, allowing traversal sequences (e.g., ../) to escape the intended shared directory. As a result, an unauthenticated attacker possessing a valid public share hash with delete permissions enabled can delete arbitrary files outside the shared directory within the share owner’s configured storage sc

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
go.etcd.io/etcd/v3, go.etcd.io/etcd

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ A vulnerability in etcd allows read access via PrevKv, or lease attachment in Put requests within transaction operations, to bypass RBAC authorization checks. An authenticated user without sufficient read or lease-related permissions may be able to access unauthorized data or attach leases by invoking transaction operations with thes

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/shellhub-io/shellhub

## Summary `GET /api/namespaces/:tenant` returns the full namespace object — including the members list (user IDs, e-mails, roles), settings, and device counts — to any caller authenticated by an **API Key**, for any tenant, regardless of the API Key's own tenant scope. The handler conditionally skips the membership check when the user ID (`X-ID`) is absent, which is exactly the case for API Key

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/daptin/daptin

### Summary A session invalidation vulnerability exists in daptin's authentication system where JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) remain fully valid after a user changes their password. The JWT validation middleware (`CheckJWT`) only verifies token signature, expiry, issuer, and signing algorithm — it does not check whether the token was issued before the most recent password change. The password update cod

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/siderolabs/talos

### Summary A vulnerability in the Linux kernel's algif_aead subsystem (CVE-2026-31431, "copy.fail") allows an unprivileged container workload to corrupt arbitrary file page-cache pages via the AF_ALG crypto interface and splice(). On Talos Linux, this vulnerability can be chained into a complete node compromise: an attacker who can schedule a pod on a worker node can, without any elevated Kubern

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kubetail-org/kubetail/modules/dashboard, github.com/kubetail-org/kubetail/modules/cli

### Summary Kubetail's dashboard exposes WebSocket endpoints that did not adequately validate the Origin header on connection upgrade. A malicious web page visited by a user with an active Kubetail session could open a WebSocket to the user's dashboard and read their Kubernetes logs in real time. This is a Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH) vulnerability and affects both the desktop deploymen

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/free5gc/udm

## Summary The free5GC UDM component fails to validate the `supi` path parameter in six GET handlers of the `nudm-sdm` (Subscriber Data Management) service. An unauthenticated attacker can inject control characters into the SUPI parameter, causing UDM to forward a malformed request to UDR and return a `500 Internal Server Error` response that exposes internal infrastructure details. ## Affected

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/ipld/go-ipld-prime

The DAG-CBOR and DAG-JSON decoders recurse on each nested map or list without a depth limit. A payload containing deeply nested collections causes the decoder to recurse once per level, growing the goroutine stack until the Go runtime terminates the process with a fatal stack overflow (distinct from a recoverable panic). For DAG-CBOR, a payload of approximately 2 MB, consisting of repeated `0x81`

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/pcf

### Summary PCF Npcf_SMPolicyControl missing authentication middleware allows unauthenticated access to SM policy handlers and disclosure of subscriber SUPI ### Details In `NewServer()`, the `smPolicyGroup` route group is created and routes are applied without attaching the router authorization middleware. In contrast, other PCF service groups such as `Npcf_PolicyAuthorization` do attach `RouterAu

💡 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)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v3

### Summary There is a missing authorization and data-masking gap in Argo CD's ServerSideDiff endpoint that allows an attacker with read-only access to extract plaintext Kubernetes Secret data from etcd via the Kubernetes API server's Server-Side Apply dry-run mechanism. ### Details Argo CD masks Secret data in every endpoint that returns Kubernetes resource state except one. All the other endpoi

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.6) (+4) | 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)
github.com/free5gc/amf

### Summary The AMF in Free5GC v4.2.1 does not enforce the concurrent security procedure rules defined in 3GPP TS 33.501 §6.9.5.1. The AMF does not check for ongoing N2 handover procedures before initiating a NAS Security Mode Command, and vice versa. This can lead to mismatches between NAS and AS security contexts in the network and the UE. ### Details **Vulnerability Type:** CWE-358 (Improper

💡 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)
github.com/free5gc/amf

### Summary The AMF in Free5GC v4.2.1 does not verify the UE Security Capabilities received in NGAP PathSwitchRequest messages against its locally stored values, as mandated by 3GPP TS 33.501 §6.7.3.1. A malicious gNB can overwrite the AMF's stored UE security capabilities with arbitrary values, which are then propagated in PathSwitchRequest Acknowledge messages and subsequent Handover Request mes

💡 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)
com.microsoft.kiota:microsoft-kiota-abstractions, Microsoft.Kiota.Abstractions, microsoft-kiota-http, kiota-typescript, github.com/microsoft/kiota-http-go

### Summary The RedirectHandler middleware in microsoft/kiota-java (com.microsoft.kiota:microsoft-kiota-http-okHttp v1.9.0) and other Kiota libraries fails to strip sensitive HTTP headers when following 3xx redirects to a different host or scheme. This vulnerability is present in the RedirectHandlers for: https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-dotnet https://github.com/microsoft/kiota-java https://

💡 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)
github.com/rancher/fleet

### Impact Fleet's Helm deployer did not fully apply ServiceAccount impersonation in two code paths, allowing a tenant with git push access to a Fleet-monitored repository to read secrets from any namespace on every downstream cluster targeted by their `GitRepo`. **Helm `lookup` bypass:** The Helm template engine ran Kubernetes API queries with the fleet-agent's cluster-admin credentials instead

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.9) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/rancher/rancher

### Impact A vulnerability has been identified in [Rancher's Extensions](https://ranchermanager.docs.rancher.com/integrations-in-rancher/rancher-extensions) where malicious code can be injected in Rancher through a path traversal in the `compressedEndpoint` field inside a `UIPlugin` deployment. A malicious UI extension could abuse that to: - Overwrite Rancher binaries or configuration to inject

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/aws/amazon-ecs-agent

### Summary [Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS)](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/Welcome.html) is a fully managed container orchestration service that enables customers to deploy, manage, and scale containerized applications. An issue exists where, under certain circumstances, improper input validation in the FSx Windows File Server volume mounting process al

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

## Summary The `/forms/chromium/convert/url` and `/forms/chromium/screenshot/url` routes accept `url=file:///tmp/...` from anonymous callers. The default Chromium deny-list intentionally exempts `file:///tmp/` so HTML/Markdown routes can load their own request-local assets, and those routes apply a per-request `AllowedFilePrefixes` guard to scope the read. The URL routes never set `AllowedFilePre

💡 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

### Summary The default deny-lists used by Gotenberg's `downloadFrom` feature and `webhook` feature are bypassable. Because the filter is regex-based and case-sensitive, an unauthenticated attacker can supply URLs such as `http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]:...` and reach loopback or private HTTP services that the default deny-list is intended to block. This crosses a real security boundary because an exte

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.4) (+4) | 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

## Summary The webhook middleware spawns a goroutine that holds a reference to the request's `echo.Context` after the synchronous handler returns `ErrAsyncProcess` and Echo recycles the context back to its `sync.Pool`. When a concurrent request claims the recycled context, `c.Reset()` clears the store. If the webhook goroutine reaches `hardTimeoutMiddleware` at that moment, an unchecked type asse

💡 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

## Summary Six conversion routes (`pdfengines/merge`, `pdfengines/split`, `libreoffice/convert`, `chromium/convert/url`, `chromium/convert/html`, `chromium/convert/markdown`) accept `stampSource=pdf` + `stampExpression=/path` and `watermarkSource=pdf` + `watermarkExpression=/path` from anonymous callers. The dedicated stamp/watermark routes require an uploaded file when the source type is image o

💡 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

## Summary `FilterOutboundURL` resolves the hostname, checks the resolved IPs against the private-address deny-list, and returns only the error. It discards the resolved addresses. Chromium later performs its own DNS resolution when it navigates to the URL. An attacker who controls DNS for a hostname with a short TTL returns a public IP on the first query (Gotenberg allows) and a private IP on th

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

### Summary The SSRF hardening shipped in v8.31.0 only covers outbound URLs that Gotenberg's Go code handles — Chromium asset fetches, webhook delivery, and download-from. The LibreOffice conversion endpoint (`/forms/libreoffice/convert`) passes uploaded documents directly to LibreOffice without inspecting their content. LibreOffice then fetches any embedded external URLs on its own, completely b

💡 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

**Summary** The ExifTool metadata write blocklist in Gotenberg v8 can be bypassed using ExifTool's group-prefix syntax, enabling arbitrary file rename, move, hardlink, and symlink creation on the server. This is a bypass of the fix for GHSA-qmwh-9m9c-h36m. **Details** The blocklist in `pkg/modules/exiftool/exiftool.go` filters four dangerous pseudo-tags (`FileName`, `Directory`, `HardLink`, `Sy

💡 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

# Unauthenticated RCE in Gotenberg via Metadata Key Newline Injection ## Summary Gotenberg's `/forms/pdfengines/metadata/write` HTTP endpoint accepts a JSON metadata object and passes its keys directly to ExifTool via the go-exiftool library. No validation is performed on key characters. A `\n` embedded in a JSON key splits the ExifTool stdin stream into a new argument line, allowing an attacker

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.8) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/shellhub-io/shellhub

## Summary The device list endpoint accepts user-controlled identifiers in two places that are passed directly as BSON/SQL keys in the database layer without validation: 1. The `name` field of each filter property in the base64-encoded `filter` query parameter. 2. The `sort_by` query parameter. Any authenticated user can craft payloads that cause the aggregation/query to fail and the AP

💡 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)
github.com/shellhub-io/shellhub

## Summary `GET /api/sessions/:uid` returns the full session object for any authenticated caller, without scoping by the caller's tenant. An authenticated user can read session records (SSH username, device UID, remote IP, terminal type, authenticated flag, timestamps) belonging to any other namespace. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1: 7.5 (High)** CWE-639 ## Affected versions ShellHub Community v0.24.1

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/shellhub-io/shellhub

## Summary `GET /api/devices/:uid` returns the full device object whenever the caller is authenticated, without verifying that the device belongs to the caller's namespace (tenant). Any authenticated user (JWT or API Key) who knows or can guess a device UID can read device metadata from any other namespace. ## Severity **CVSS 3.1: 7.5 (High)** CWE-639 — Authorization Bypass Through User-Controll

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow-sdk-go/v5

## Summary The AxonFlow SDK's `WebhookSubscription` (or equivalent) type did not expose the HMAC-SHA256 signing key returned by the platform's `CreateWebhook` endpoint. Without access to the secret through the typed SDK API, callers had no path to verify the `X-AxonFlow-Signature` header on incoming webhook deliveries. Affected callers had two unsatisfactory options: 1. Skip signature verificati

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/getaxonflow/axonflow

## Summary Eight independently-filed bug fixes in the v7.1.3 → v7.5.0 release window collectively close a set of multi-tenant isolation, access-control, and policy-enforcement defects in the AxonFlow platform. They are filed as a single consolidated advisory because the recommended remediation is a single platform upgrade. ## Affected versions `= 7.5.0`. ## Impact | # | Item | Affected | Patc

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/canonical/authd

authd 0.6.0 contains [a bug](https://github.com/canonical/authd/issues/1482) which can lead to an incorrect primary group ID. It affects users whose primary group ID (i.e. the GID in the user record) differs from their UID. There are two ways which can lead to this: 1. The user was created with authd &2 continue fi if [ "$OLD_GID" = "$GID" ]; then continue # user not aff

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/prometheus/prometheus

### Impact In the Prometheus server's legacy web UI (enabled via the command-line flag `--enable-feature=old-ui`), the histogram heatmap chart view does not escape `le` label values when inserting them into the HTML for use as axis tick mark labels. An attacker who can inject crafted metrics (e.g. via a compromised scrape target, remote write, or OTLP receiver endpoint) can execute JavaScript in

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/kubewarden/kubewarden-controller

### Impact Kubewarden is a policy engine for Kubernetes. Kubewarden cluster operators can grant permissions to users to deploy namespaced AdmissionPolicies and AdmissionPolicyGroups in their Namespaces. One of Kubewarden promises is that configured users can deploy namespaced policies in a safe manner, without privilege escalation. An attacker with privileged AdmissionPolicy or AdmissionPolicyGro

💡 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)
github.com/pocketbase/pocketbase

A pre-hijacking issue was discovered with the OAuth2 autolinking by [Alardiians](https://github.com/Alardiians). In some situations, if an attacker knows the email address of the victim they can create and link an **unverified** PocketBase user in advance by authenticating with one of the OAuth2 app providers, e.g. "A". When the victim gets invited or decides to sign up to your app on their own w

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/apernet/hysteria/core/v2

### Summary A specially constructed quic package can crash the server OOM when the sniff is enabled. ### Details When the server has sniff enabled, a valid connection can request the server to forward UDP traffic and construct a huge crypto length. The server will allocate memory according to this length, causing an OOM. ### PoC ``` openssl req -x509 -newkey rsa:2048 -nodes -keyout localhost.

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/l3montree-dev/devguard

### Impact The `SessionMiddleware` accepts a client-supplied `X-Admin-Token` HTTP request header and uses its raw string value as the authenticated `userID` when no Kratos session cookie is present. An unauthenticated attacker who knows or can guess a target user's Kratos identity UUID can issue requests as that user. Where the target user is an organisation `admin` or `owner`, this gives the atta

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/osrg/gobgp/v4

### Summary Remote Denial of Service (DoS) via Nil Pointer Dereference in BGP Update Processing An unauthenticated remote BGP peer can trigger a fatal panic in GoBGP by sending a specially crafted BGP UPDATE message. When the server receives a message with inconsistent attribute lengths, it improperly handles the internal state transition to a "withdraw" action, leading to a nil pointer dereferenc

💡 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)
github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI

## Summary An authenticated user can call `GET /api/settings` and retrieve sensitive configuration values, including `node.secret`. The same `node.secret` is accepted by `AuthRequired()` through the `X-Node-Secret` header (or `node_secret` query parameter), causing the request to be treated as authenticated via the trusted-node path and associated with the init user. In my local reproduction on `v

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 11.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3, github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2

## Summary **Description** A Cross-Site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Go Fiber allows a remote attacker to inject arbitrary HTML/JavaScript by supplying `Accept: text/html` on any request whose handler passes attacker-influenced data to the AutoFormat() feature. This affects `github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3` (`DefaultRes.AutoFormat`) through version 3.1.0 and `github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2` (`Ct

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/minio/minio

### Impact _What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_ A path traversal vulnerability in MinIO's `ReadMultiple` internode storage-REST endpoint allows a caller holding the cluster root JWT to read files from outside the configured drive roots, bounded only by the MinIO process UID. Distributed-erasure (multi-node) MinIO deployments are impacted. Single-node standalone deployments do no

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/openbao/openbao

### Impact When OpenBao's initial namespace deletion fails, subsequent retries fail to properly remove all data before marking the namespace as deleted. This can affect any outstanding leases as well as potentially leaving unrelated storage entries around. ### Patches This will be patched in OpenBao v2.5.3. ### Workarounds Users may manually remove mounts prior to deleting the namespace. A

💡 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)
github.com/prometheus/prometheus

### Impact The remote read endpoint (`/api/v1/read`) does not validate the declared decoded length in a snappy-compressed request body before allocating memory. An unauthenticated attacker can send a small payload that causes a huge heap allocation per request. Under concurrent load this can exhaust available memory and crash the Prometheus process. ### Patches _Has the problem been patched? Wha

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/prometheus/prometheus

### Impact Users who use Azure AD remote write with OAuth authentication are impacted. The `client_secret` field in the Azure AD remote write OAuth configuration (`storage/remote/azuread`) was typed as `string` instead of `Secret`. Prometheus redacts fields of type `Secret` when serving the configuration via the `/-/config` HTTP API endpoint. Because the field was a plain string, the Azure OAuth

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
👥 作者: Karolina Gorna, Nicolas Iooss, Yannick Seurin, Rida Khatoun, Keith Makan

本文介绍了 Zorya 符号执行框架的扩展,使其能够处理由 Go 标准 gc 编译器生成的多线程二进制文件。Zorya 框架最初仅支持单线程 TinyGo 二进制,通过将二进制提升到 Ghidra 的 P-Code 中间表示,并利用 Z3 SMT 求解器对具体值和符号值进行推理来检测漏洞。为了支持 gc 编译的二进制,作者解决了三个关键挑战:从 gdb 转储恢复操作系统线程状态以处理多线程;中和运行时抢占机制避免执行干扰;引入写时复制(copy-on-write)覆盖路径分析,用于检测未执行分支上的静默漏洞(如整数溢出)。研究在 11 个来自生产级 Go 项目(如 Kubernetes、Go-Ethereum 和 CoreDNS)的真实漏洞上进行了严格评估。结果表明,Zorya 成功检测出 7 个二进制级别漏洞,其中包括一个静默整数溢出——其他评估工具在没有手动编写预言(oracle)的情况下无法发现。该工作显著扩展了 concolic 测试在 Go 生态系统的实用性,为自动化安全分析提供了新手段。适合安全研究人员、Go 开发者和二进制分析工具开发者阅读。

💡 推荐理由: Zorya 框架的扩展填补了 Go 二进制符号执行研究的空白,能够自动化检测多线程 Go 应用中的安全缺陷,对 K8s、以太坊等关键基础设施的安全性评估具有直接价值。

🎯 建议动作: 研究跟进

排序因子: 来自 arXiv 其他板块 (+2) | Community 数据源 (+1) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.5)
chainguard.dev/apko

apko verifies the signature on `APKINDEX.tar.gz` but never compares individually downloaded `.apk` packages against the checksum recorded in the signed index. The checksum is parsed and available via `ChecksumString()`, and the downloaded package control hash is computed, but the two values are never compared in `getPackageImpl()`. Mismatched packages are silently accepted. An attacker who can sub

💡 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)
chainguard.dev/apko

### Impact A crafted `.apk` could install a `TypeSymlink` tar entry whose target pointed outside the build root, and a subsequent directory-creation or file-write entry in the same or later archive could traverse that symlink to reach host paths the build user could write to. The root cause was the `sanitizePath` helper in `pkg/apk/fs/rwosfs.go`, which rejected only lexical `..` traversal and did

💡 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)
chainguard.dev/apko

`DiscoverKeys` in `pkg/apk/apk/implementation.go` unconditionally type-asserts JWKS keys as `*rsa.PublicKey` without checking the key type. If a repository JWKS endpoint returns a non-RSA key (e.g. EC), the unchecked assertion panics and crashes apko. This affects any workflow that initializes the APK database and fetches repository keys. Affected versions <= 0.30.34. **Fix:** No fix available ye

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/pelicanplatform/pelican

## Background On April 2nd, 2026, a Claude coding agent alerted Pelican PI Brian Bockelman to a privilege escalation vulnerability affecting Pelican's Web User Interface (WebUI) for various versions between `v7.21` and `v7.24`. Upon further investigation, the Pelican team discovered this attack allows any user authenticated to the WebUI via OAuth to gain admin privileges under certain configurati

💡 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)
github.com/distribution/distribution/v3, github.com/distribution/distribution

### Summary Tag deletion via the `DELETE /v2//manifests/` endpoint bypasses the `storage.delete.enabled: false` configuration, allowing any API client to remove tags from repositories even when the operator has explicitly disabled deletion. ### Details When `storage.delete.enabled` is configured to false, digest-based manifest deletion is correctly rejected by the guard in [registry/storage/lin

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v4

### Summary The workflow executor logs all artifact repository credentials (S3 access keys, secret keys, GCS service account keys, Azure account keys, Git passwords, etc.) in plaintext on artifact operation. Any user with read access to workflow pod logs can extract these credentials. **Note:** This is an incomplete fix of [CVE-2025-62157](https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/security/advis

💡 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)
github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3, github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v4

The fix for CVE-2026-31892 (commit 534f4ff) blocks `podSpecPatch` when `templateReferencing: Strict` is active, but doesn't restrict other WorkflowSpec fields that flow through the same merge path and get applied to pods. A user can set `hostNetwork: true`, override `serviceAccountName`, or change `securityContext` on their Workflow while referencing a hardened template -- these survive `JoinWorkf

💡 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)
github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v3, github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v4

**Severity:** Medium **Component:** Webhook Interceptor (`server/auth/webhook`) **Vulnerability Type:** Denial of Service (DoS) ## Description The Webhook Interceptor loads the entire request body into memory before authenticating the request or verifying its signature. This occurs on the `/api/v1/events/` endpoint, which is publicly accessible (albeit intended for webhooks). An attacker can send

💡 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)
github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v4

### Summary A nil pointer dereference in `server/auth/gatekeeper.go` `rbacAuthorization()` causes a panic (denial of service) for SSO users whose claims match a namespace-level RBAC rule but not an SSO-namespace rule, when `SSO_DELEGATE_RBAC_TO_NAMESPACE=true`. ### Details When `getServiceAccount(claims, ssoNamespace)` returns nil (no matching rule), the error is suppressed and `loginAccount` rem

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/v4

### Summary The Sync Service's ConfigMap-backed provider (`server/sync/sync_cm.go`) performs **zero authorization checks** on all CRUD operations (create, read, update, delete). Any authenticated user — including those using fake Bearer tokens — can create, read, update, and delete Kubernetes ConfigMaps containing synchronization limits. ### Details The ConfigMap-backed provider (`server/sync/syn

💡 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)
推荐 10.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/edgelesssys/contrast

### Impact The [Kata agent policies](https://docs.edgeless.systems/contrast/architecture/components/policies) generated by the Contrast CLI had an issue in the `CopyFile` verification, which allowed arbitrary writes to the guest root filesytem. A malicious process on the host with the capability to connect to the Kata agent VSOCK could connect to the agent and issue a series of `CopyFile` request

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/getarcaneapp/arcane/backend

### Summary Four `GET` endpoints under `/api/templates*` in Arcane's Huma backend are registered without any `Security` requirement, allowing any unauthenticated network client to list and read the full Compose YAML and `.env` content of every custom template stored in the instance. Because Arcane's UI exposes a "Save as Template" flow on the project / swarm-stack creation pages that persists the

💡 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)
github.com/go-pkgz/auth, github.com/go-pkgz/auth/v2

### Summary The Patreon OAuth provider maps every authenticated Patreon account to the same local `user.ID`, instead of deriving a unique ID from the Patreon account returned by Patreon. In practice, this means all Patreon-authenticated users of an application using this library are collapsed into a single local identity. Any application that trusts `token.User.ID` as the stable account key can e

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.1) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/ydb-platform/ydb-go-sdk/v3

### Impact Transactions were NOT committed despite the explicit `options.WithCommit` flag using table service client. Because of this, clients did not commit changes to the transaction, relying on the fact that the transaction commit was successful. This led (in rare cases) to a loss of data consistency. ### Patches `ydb-go-sdk` contains this problem in versions from [v3.104.6](https://github.com

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

## Vulnerability Details **CWE**: CWE-20 - Improper Input Validation The metadata value sanitization introduced in v8.30.1 (commit 405f106) only validates metadata KEYS via safeKeyPattern regex. Metadata VALUES are passed unsanitized to go-exiftool SetString(), which writes them as fmt.Fprintln(e.stdin, "-"+k+"="+str). A newline (\n) in a value splits the ExifTool stdin line into two separate ar

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (10.0) (+4) | 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)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

# CVE Report — Unauthenticated SSRF via Unfiltered Webhook URL in Gotenberg ## Severity | Field | Value | |-----------|----------------------------------------| | CVSS v3.1 | **8.6 High** | | Vector | `AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N` | | CWE | CWE-918 — Server-Side Request Forgery | | Auth | None

💡 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) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
github.com/gotenberg/gotenberg/v8

## Vulnerability Details **CWE**: CWE-918 - Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) The default private-IP deny-lists for --webhook-deny-list and --api-download-from-deny-list use a case-sensitive regex (^https?://). Any uppercase URL scheme variant (HTTP://, HTTPS://, Http://) bypasses the pattern. Go's net/url.Parse() normalizes the scheme to lowercase when making the outbound TCP connection, so th

💡 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: CVSS 严重风险 (9.3) (+4) | 有可用补丁/修复方案 (+3) | Secondary 数据源 (+2) | 包含 CVE (+2) | 影响关键基础设施/核心组件 (+4) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/tinfoil-factory/netfoil

### Summary The optional flag `--filter-system-calls` was not applied even if specified. ### Details This is a defense in depth feature to apply additional seccomp filters after the binary has started. The example config also sandboxes the binary with systemd. ### Impact Reduced sandboxing of the netfoil binary.

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 5.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/tinfoil-factory/netfoil

### Summary Rules could be bypassed by changing the first character: `example.com` could be be bypassed by e.g. `fxample.com`. ### Details Off-by-one error in the suffixtrie implementation. ### Impact The domain filter could be bypassed. Please note that DNS filtering alone is not enough to block malicious traffic.

💡 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) | LLM 评分加成 (+0.4)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/coredns/coredns

### Summary The gRPC, QUIC, DoH, and DoH3 transports in CoreDNS incorrectly handle TSIG authentication. For gRPC and QUIC, CoreDNS checks whether the TSIG key name exists in the config, but does not actually verify the TSIG HMAC. If the key name matches, `tsigStatus` remains nil and the tsig plugin treats the request as "verified". For DoH and DoH3, the issue is worse: TSIG is not verified at a

💡 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)
github.com/coredns/coredns

### Summary CoreDNS' tsig plugin can be bypassed on non-plain-DNS transports because it trusts the transport writer's TsigStatus() instead of performing verification itself. In the attached PoC, plain DNS/TCP correctly rejects an invalid TSIG (NOTAUTH), while the same invalid-TSIG request is accepted over DoT (tls://) and DoH (https://), allowing a client without the shared secret to satisfy requi

💡 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)
github.com/coredns/coredns

### Summary CoreDNS' transfer plugin can select the wrong ACL stanza when both a parent zone and a more-specific subzone are configured. A permissive parent-zone transfer rule can override a restrictive subzone rule (name-dependent), allowing an unauthorized client to perform AXFR/IXFR for the subzone and retrieve its zone contents. ### Details In plugin/transfer/transfer.go, stanza selection is

💡 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)
github.com/coredns/coredns

### Summary CoreDNS's DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) GET path accepts oversized `dns=` query values and performs substantial request parsing, query unescaping, base64 decoding, and message unpacking work before returning `400 Bad Request`. A remote, unauthenticated attacker can repeatedly send oversized DoH GET requests to `/dns-query?dns=...` and force high CPU usage, large transient allocations, elevate

💡 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)
推荐 7.4
Conf: 50%
github.com/coredns/coredns

### Summary CoreDNS' DNS-over-QUIC (DoQ) server can be driven into large goroutine and memory growth by a remote client that opens many QUIC streams and stalls after sending only 1 byte. Even with a small configured quic { worker_pool_size ... }, CoreDNS still spawns a goroutine per accepted stream (workers + waiters) and active workers can block indefinitely in io.ReadFull() with no per-stream re

💡 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)
github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3

### Summary Fiber cache middleware's default key generator uses only `c.Path()` and does not include the query string. As a result, requests like `/?id=1` and `/?id=2` can map to the same cache key and share the same cached response. This can cause response mix-up (cache poisoning-like behavior) for endpoints where response content depends on query parameters. ### Details Default configuration i

💡 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)