CWE-697
DiscouragedIncorrect Comparison
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
214 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-JX3F-3W4X-79WC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:38 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:38A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the traffic-logging functionality of FreyrSCADA IEC-60879-5-104 Server Simulator 21.04.028. A specially crafted packet can lead to denial of service. An attacker can send a malicious packet to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-13559"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-11T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the traffic-logging functionality of FreyrSCADA IEC-60879-5-104 Server Simulator 21.04.028. A specially crafted packet can lead to denial of service. An attacker can send a malicious packet to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-jx3f-3w4x-79wc",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:38:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:38:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-13559"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2020-1174"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-M34P-749J-X6M6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 22:49 – Updated: 2026-06-26 22:49Summary
js-toml's interpreter checks whether a key already exists in a parser-built container with if (object[key]) instead of if (key in object). When the prior value is a falsy primitive — false, 0, 0n, 0.0, -0, or "" — the duplicate-key branch is skipped and the value is silently overwritten by a later sub-table, dotted-key sub-table, or array-of-tables sharing the same name. Per the TOML 1.0.0 spec ("Defining a key multiple times is invalid"; "You cannot define any key or table more than once"), this should be a parse error.
The result is structural type confusion of attacker-named keys in the value returned by load(). A boolean-typed false (or numeric 0) becomes a truthy object. Host applications that gate behavior on if (config.flag), if (!user.banned), if (config.allowDelete), or if (config.publicMode) will silently take the truthy branch.
This is distinct from GHSA-65fc-cr5f-v7r2 (the 1.0.2 prototype-pollution fix). Object.prototype is not polluted. The Object.create(null) mitigation from 1.0.2 is intact; the bug here is in the duplicate-key state machine, not in container construction.
Details
Two truthy checks are wrong:
src/load/interpreter.ts:214 — Interpreter.tryCreatingObject
if (object[key]) { // falsy primitives slip through
// duplicate-key logic
} else {
object[key] = createSafeObject(); // silently overwrites the prior falsy value
...
}
src/load/interpreter.ts:278 — Interpreter.getOrCreateArray
if (object[first] && !Array.isArray(object[first])) { // same flaw
throw new DuplicateKeyError();
}
object[first] = object[first] || []; // overwrites the prior falsy value
Both should use the in operator. Containers are created via Object.create(null), so in is unambiguous (no inherited keys to worry about).
The bug is reachable through every parent-walking interpreter path:
assignValue— dotted keys inkey = valuecreateTable—[stdTable]headersgetOrCreateArray—[[arrayOfTables]]headers
PoC
isAdmin = false
[isAdmin]
forced = "yes"
import { load } from 'js-toml';
const config = load(`
isAdmin = false
[isAdmin]
forced = "yes"
`);
console.log(JSON.stringify(config));
// {"isAdmin":{"forced":"yes"}}
console.log(config.isAdmin ? 'BYPASS' : 'safe');
// BYPASS
if (config.isAdmin) {
// attacker reaches admin-only code
}
Impact
Spec-violating input acceptance leading to structural type confusion. (CWE-697)
Suggested fix
in src/load/interpreter.ts
export class Interpreter extends BaseCstVisitor {
ignoreImplicitDeclared,
ignoreExplicitDeclared
) {
- if (object[key]) {
+ if (key in object) {
if (
!isPlainObject(object[key]) ||
(!ignoreExplicitDeclared &&
export class Interpreter extends BaseCstVisitor {
return this.getOrCreateArray(keys, object[first], idx + 1);
}
- if (object[first] && !Array.isArray(object[first])) {
+ if (first in object && !Array.isArray(object[first])) {
throw new DuplicateKeyError();
}
object[first] = object[first] || [];
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.1.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "js-toml"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-50029"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-26T22:49:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\n`js-toml`\u0027s interpreter checks whether a key already exists in a parser-built container with `if (object[key])` instead of `if (key in object)`. When the prior value is a falsy primitive \u2014 `false`, `0`, `0n`, `0.0`, `-0`, or `\"\"` \u2014 the duplicate-key branch is skipped and the value is silently overwritten by a later sub-table, dotted-key sub-table, or array-of-tables sharing the same name. Per the TOML 1.0.0 spec (\"Defining a key multiple times is invalid\"; \"You cannot define any key or table more than once\"), this should be a parse error.\n\nThe result is **structural type confusion of attacker-named keys** in the value returned by `load()`. A boolean-typed `false` (or numeric `0`) becomes a truthy object. Host applications that gate behavior on `if (config.flag)`, `if (!user.banned)`, `if (config.allowDelete)`, or `if (config.publicMode)` will silently take the truthy branch.\n\nThis is **distinct** from [GHSA-65fc-cr5f-v7r2](https://github.com/sunnyadn/js-toml/security/advisories/GHSA-65fc-cr5f-v7r2) (the 1.0.2 prototype-pollution fix). `Object.prototype` is **not** polluted. The `Object.create(null)` mitigation from 1.0.2 is intact; the bug here is in the duplicate-key state machine, not in container construction.\n\n### Details\n\nTwo truthy checks are wrong:\n\n`src/load/interpreter.ts:214` \u2014 `Interpreter.tryCreatingObject`\n\n```js\nif (object[key]) { // falsy primitives slip through\n // duplicate-key logic\n} else {\n object[key] = createSafeObject(); // silently overwrites the prior falsy value\n ...\n}\n```\n\n`src/load/interpreter.ts:278` \u2014 `Interpreter.getOrCreateArray`\n\n```js\nif (object[first] \u0026\u0026 !Array.isArray(object[first])) { // same flaw\n throw new DuplicateKeyError();\n}\nobject[first] = object[first] || []; // overwrites the prior falsy value\n```\n\nBoth should use the `in` operator. Containers are created via `Object.create(null)`, so `in` is unambiguous (no inherited keys to worry about).\n\nThe bug is reachable through every parent-walking interpreter path:\n\n- `assignValue` \u2014 dotted keys in `key = value`\n- `createTable` \u2014 `[stdTable]` headers\n- `getOrCreateArray` \u2014 `[[arrayOfTables]]` headers\n\n### PoC\n\n```toml\nisAdmin = false\n[isAdmin]\nforced = \"yes\"\n```\n\n```js\nimport { load } from \u0027js-toml\u0027;\n\nconst config = load(`\nisAdmin = false\n[isAdmin]\nforced = \"yes\"\n`);\n\nconsole.log(JSON.stringify(config));\n// {\"isAdmin\":{\"forced\":\"yes\"}}\n\nconsole.log(config.isAdmin ? \u0027BYPASS\u0027 : \u0027safe\u0027);\n// BYPASS\n\nif (config.isAdmin) {\n // attacker reaches admin-only code\n}\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nSpec-violating input acceptance leading to structural type confusion. (CWE-697)\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nin `src/load/interpreter.ts`\n\n```diff\nexport class Interpreter extends BaseCstVisitor {\n ignoreImplicitDeclared,\n ignoreExplicitDeclared\n ) {\n- if (object[key]) {\n+ if (key in object) {\n if (\n !isPlainObject(object[key]) ||\n (!ignoreExplicitDeclared \u0026\u0026\n```\n```diff\nexport class Interpreter extends BaseCstVisitor {\n return this.getOrCreateArray(keys, object[first], idx + 1);\n }\n\n- if (object[first] \u0026\u0026 !Array.isArray(object[first])) {\n+ if (first in object \u0026\u0026 !Array.isArray(object[first])) {\n throw new DuplicateKeyError();\n }\n\n object[first] = object[first] || [];\n```",
"id": "GHSA-m34p-749j-x6m6",
"modified": "2026-06-26T22:49:28Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T22:49:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sunnyadn/js-toml/security/advisories/GHSA-m34p-749j-x6m6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sunnyadn/js-toml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "js-toml has silent type confusion via falsy-primitive duplicate-key bypass"
}
GHSA-MFJC-5GRF-8MP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:10 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:10In JetBrains YouTrack before 2021.2.16363, time-unsafe comparisons were used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-37550"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-06T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In JetBrains YouTrack before 2021.2.16363, time-unsafe comparisons were used.",
"id": "GHSA-mfjc-5grf-8mp2",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:10:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:10:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-37550"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2021/08/05/jetbrains-security-bulletin-q2-2021"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-MH6Q-V4MP-2CC7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-17 15:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 00:30The “ipaddress” module contained incorrect information about whether certain IPv4 and IPv6 addresses were designated as “globally reachable” or “private”. This affected the is_private and is_global properties of the ipaddress.IPv4Address, ipaddress.IPv4Network, ipaddress.IPv6Address, and ipaddress.IPv6Network classes, where values wouldn’t be returned in accordance with the latest information from the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries.
CPython 3.12.4 and 3.13.0a6 contain updated information from these registries and thus have the intended behavior.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4032"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-17T15:15:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The \u201cipaddress\u201d module contained incorrect information about whether certain IPv4 and IPv6 addresses were designated as \u201cglobally reachable\u201d or \u201cprivate\u201d. This affected the is_private and is_global properties of the ipaddress.IPv4Address, ipaddress.IPv4Network, ipaddress.IPv6Address, and ipaddress.IPv6Network classes, where values wouldn\u2019t be returned in accordance with the latest information from the IANA Special-Purpose Address Registries.\n\nCPython 3.12.4 and 3.13.0a6 contain updated information from these registries and thus have the intended behavior.",
"id": "GHSA-mh6q-v4mp-2cc7",
"modified": "2025-11-04T00:30:49Z",
"published": "2024-06-17T15:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/113171"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/113179"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/22adf29da8d99933ffed8647d3e0726edd16f7f8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/40d75c2b7f5c67e254d0a025e0f2e2c7ada7f69f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/895f7e2ac23eff4743143beef0f0c5ac71ea27d3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ba431579efdcbaed7a96f2ac4ea0775879a332fb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/c62c9e518b784fe44432a3f4fc265fb95b651906"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/f86b17ac511e68192ba71f27e752321a3252cee3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/12/msg00000.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mail.python.org/archives/list/security-announce@python.org/thread/NRUHDUS2IV2USIZM2CVMSFL6SCKU3RZA"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240726-0004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/06/17/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-MJFX-92V4-6MF3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-11 18:32 – Updated: 2024-10-11 18:32An Incorrect Comparison vulnerability in the local address verification API of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated network-adjacent attacker to create sessions or send traffic to the device using the network and broadcast address of the subnet assigned to an interface. This is unintended and unexpected behavior and can allow an attacker to bypass certain compensating controls, such as stateless firewall filters.
This issue affects Junos OS Evolved:
- All versions before 21.4R3-S8-EVO,
- 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S4-EVO,
- 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-S4-EVO,
- 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-S3-EVO,
- 23.2-EVO before 23.2R2-S1-EVO,
- 23.4-EVO before 23.4R1-S2-EVO, 23.4R2-EVO.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39534"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-11T16:15:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An\u00a0Incorrect Comparison vulnerability in the local address verification API of Juniper Networks Junos OS Evolved allows an unauthenticated network-adjacent attacker to create sessions or send traffic to the device using the network and broadcast address of the subnet assigned to an interface. This is unintended and unexpected behavior and can allow an attacker to bypass certain compensating controls, such as stateless firewall filters.\n\nThis issue affects Junos OS Evolved:\u00a0\n\n\n\n * All versions before 21.4R3-S8-EVO,\u00a0\n * 22.2-EVO before 22.2R3-S4-EVO,\u00a0\n * 22.3-EVO before 22.3R3-S4-EVO,\u00a0\n * 22.4-EVO before 22.4R3-S3-EVO,\u00a0\n * 23.2-EVO before 23.2R2-S1-EVO,\u00a0\n * 23.4-EVO before 23.4R1-S2-EVO, 23.4R2-EVO.",
"id": "GHSA-mjfx-92v4-6mf3",
"modified": "2024-10-11T18:32:49Z",
"published": "2024-10-11T18:32:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39534"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://supportportal.juniper.net/JSA88105"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-MVF3-QJ92-4C7R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-09 15:30 – Updated: 2025-02-07 21:30An Incorrect Regular Expression vulnerability in Bitdefender GravityZone Update Server allows an attacker to cause a Server Side Request Forgery and reconfigure the relay. This issue affects the following products that include the vulnerable component:
Bitdefender Endpoint Security for Linux version 7.0.5.200089 Bitdefender Endpoint Security for Windows version 7.9.9.380 GravityZone Control Center (On Premises) version 6.36.1
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-2223"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-185",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-09T13:15:33Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An Incorrect Regular Expression vulnerability in Bitdefender GravityZone Update Server allows an attacker to cause a Server Side Request Forgery and reconfigure the relay. This issue affects the following products that include the vulnerable component:\u00a0\n\nBitdefender Endpoint Security for Linux version 7.0.5.200089\nBitdefender Endpoint Security for\u00a0 Windows version 7.9.9.380\nGravityZone Control Center (On Premises) version 6.36.1",
"id": "GHSA-mvf3-qj92-4c7r",
"modified": "2025-02-07T21:30:51Z",
"published": "2024-04-09T15:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-2223"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.bitdefender.com/support/security-advisories/incorrect-regular-expression-in-gravityzone-update-server-va-11465"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PCMR-4MMX-225X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-05 03:32 – Updated: 2026-07-05 03:32A vulnerability was found in HdrHistogram up to 2.2.2. This issue affects the function org.HdrHistogram.DoubleHistogram.recordValue of the file src/main/java/org/HdrHistogram/DoubleHistogram.java of the component Range Check. Performing a manipulation results in incorrect comparison. The attack is only possible with local access. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-14686"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-05T01:21:57Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in HdrHistogram up to 2.2.2. This issue affects the function org.HdrHistogram.DoubleHistogram.recordValue of the file src/main/java/org/HdrHistogram/DoubleHistogram.java of the component Range Check. Performing a manipulation results in incorrect comparison. The attack is only possible with local access. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.",
"id": "GHSA-pcmr-4mmx-225x",
"modified": "2026-07-05T03:32:33Z",
"published": "2026-07-05T03:32:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/HdrHistogram/HdrHistogram/issues/222"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/HdrHistogram/HdrHistogram"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-14686"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/846762"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/376282"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/376282/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-PG7C-4MVG-5FMJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-14 00:30 – Updated: 2023-12-28 18:30The SolarWinds Platform was susceptible to the Incorrect Comparison Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows users with administrative access to SolarWinds Web Console to execute arbitrary commands with NETWORK SERVICE privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-23840"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697",
"CWE-749"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-13T23:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The SolarWinds Platform was susceptible to the Incorrect Comparison Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows users with administrative access to SolarWinds Web Console to execute arbitrary commands with NETWORK SERVICE privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-pg7c-4mvg-5fmj",
"modified": "2023-12-28T18:30:32Z",
"published": "2023-09-14T00:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23840"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.solarwinds.com/en/success_center/orionplatform/content/release_notes/solarwinds_platform_2023-3-1_release_notes.htm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.solarwinds.com/trust-center/security-advisories/CVE-2023-23840"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PPJ4-34RQ-V8J9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-10-25 19:43 – Updated: 2024-05-20 20:41GJSON is a Go package that provides a fast and simple way to get values from a json document. GJSON before 1.9.3 allows a ReDoS (regular expression denial of service) attack.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/tidwall/gjson"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-42836"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1333",
"CWE-400",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-10-25T18:27:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-22T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GJSON is a Go package that provides a fast and simple way to get values from a json document. GJSON before 1.9.3 allows a ReDoS (regular expression denial of service) attack.",
"id": "GHSA-ppj4-34rq-v8j9",
"modified": "2024-05-20T20:41:04Z",
"published": "2021-10-25T19:43:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42836"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tidwall/gjson/issues/236"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tidwall/gjson/issues/237"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tidwall/gjson/commit/590010fdac311cc8990ef5c97448d4fec8f29944"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tidwall/gjson/commit/77a57fda87dca6d0d7d4627d512a630f89a91c96"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/tidwall/gjson"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tidwall/gjson/compare/v1.9.2...v1.9.3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2021-0265"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "github.com/tidwall/gjson Vulnerable to REDoS attack"
}
GHSA-Q4WJ-8854-JVXQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:34 – Updated: 2024-01-23 15:30An unauthenticated client can trigger denial of service by issuing specially crafted wire protocol messages, which cause the message decompressor to incorrectly allocate memory. This issue affects: MongoDB Inc. MongoDB Server v4.2 versions prior to 4.2.1; v4.0 versions prior to 4.0.13; v3.6 versions prior to 3.6.15; v3.4 versions prior to 3.4.24.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-20925"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697",
"CWE-839"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-11-24T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An unauthenticated client can trigger denial of service by issuing specially crafted wire protocol messages, which cause the message decompressor to incorrectly allocate memory. This issue affects: MongoDB Inc. MongoDB Server v4.2 versions prior to 4.2.1; v4.0 versions prior to 4.0.13; v3.6 versions prior to 3.6.15; v3.4 versions prior to 3.4.24.",
"id": "GHSA-q4wj-8854-jvxq",
"modified": "2024-01-23T15:30:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:34:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-20925"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-43751"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-10: Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
CAPEC-120: Double Encoding
The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.
CAPEC-14: Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-182: Flash Injection
An attacker tricks a victim to execute malicious flash content that executes commands or makes flash calls specified by the attacker. One example of this attack is cross-site flashing, an attacker controlled parameter to a reference call loads from content specified by the attacker.
CAPEC-24: Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
CAPEC-267: Leverage Alternate Encoding
An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard.
CAPEC-3: Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. An adversary can intentionally introduce leading "ghost" characters (extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer) that enable the input to pass the filters and therefore process the adversary's input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API.
CAPEC-41: Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads
This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-44: Overflow Binary Resource File
An attack of this type exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in the handling of binary resources. Binary resources may include music files like MP3, image files like JPEG files, and any other binary file. These attacks may pass unnoticed to the client machine through normal usage of files, such as a browser loading a seemingly innocent JPEG file. This can allow the adversary access to the execution stack and execute arbitrary code in the target process.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-46: Overflow Variables and Tags
This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
CAPEC-47: Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
CAPEC-52: Embedding NULL Bytes
An adversary embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s).
CAPEC-53: Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an adversary to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-67: String Format Overflow in syslog()
This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function.
CAPEC-7: Blind SQL Injection
Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.
CAPEC-71: Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
CAPEC-73: User-Controlled Filename
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
CAPEC-78: Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
CAPEC-79: Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
CAPEC-8: Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
CAPEC-80: Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.
CAPEC-9: Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
CAPEC-92: Forced Integer Overflow
This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code.