ghsa

### Impact OctoPrint versions up until and including 1.10.2 contain a vulnerability that allows an attacker that has gained temporary control over an authenticated victim's OctoPrint browser session to retrieve/recreate/delete the user's or - if the victim has admin permissions - the global API key without having to reauthenticate by re-entering the user account's password. An attacker could use a stolen API key to access OctoPrint through its API, or disrupt workflows depending on the API key they deleted. ### Patches The vulnerability will be patched in version 1.10.3. ### Credits This vulnerability was discovered and responsibly disclosed to OctoPrint by Jacopo Tediosi.

### Impact OctoPrint versions up until and including 1.10.2 are vulnerable to reflected XSS vulnerabilities through its Jinja2 template system, as this is not configured to enforce automatic escaping. This affects, among other places, the login dialog and the standalone application key confirmation dialog. An attacker who successfully talked a victim into clicking on or through a malicious third party app successfully redirected a victim to a specially crafted link could use this to retrieve or modify sensitive configuration settings, interrupt prints or otherwise interact with the OctoPrint instance in a malicious way. ### Patches The above mentioned specific vulnerabilities of the login dialog and the standalone application key confirmation dialog will be patched in the bugfix release 1.10.3 by individual escaping of the detected locations. A global change throughout all of OctoPrint's templating system with the upcoming 1.11.0 release will handle this further, switching to glob...

localai <=2.20.1 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS). When calling the delete model API and passing inappropriate parameters, it can cause a one-time storage XSS, which will trigger the payload when a user accesses the homepage.

In agentscope <=v0.0.4, the file `agentscope\web\workstation\workflow_utils.py` has the function `is_callable_expression`. Within this function, the line `result = eval(s)` poses a security risk as it can directly execute user-provided commands.

langflow <=1.0.18 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) as any component provided the code functionality and the components run on the local machine rather than in a sandbox.

In gradio <=4.42.0, the gr.DownloadButton function has a hidden server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. The reason is that within the save_url_to_cache function, there are no restrictions on the URL, which allows access to local target resources. This can lead to the download of local resources and sensitive information.

### Impact Anonymous users can delete the user data maintained by an `AccessControl.userfolder.UserFolder` which may prevent any privileged access. ### Patches The problem is fixed in version 7.2. ### Workarounds The problem can be fixed by adding `data__roles__ = ()` to `AccessControl.userfolder.UserFolder`. ### References https://github.com/zopefoundation/AccessControl/issues/159

### Summary The various header-related Refit attributes (Header, HeaderCollection and Authorize) are vulnerable to CRLF injection. ### Details The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the `HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation` method: <https://github.com/reactiveui/refit/blob/258a771f44417c6e48e103ac921fe4786f3c2a1e/Refit/RequestBuilderImplementation.cs#L1328> This method does not check for CRLF characters in the header value. This means that any headers added to a refit request are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests. ### PoC The below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable (a bearer token) and then makes a request to some status page with the provided token inserted in the "Authorization" header: ```c# using Refit; internal class Program { private static void Main(string[] args) { ...

### Summary Reposilite v3.5.10 is affected by an Arbitrary File Read vulnerability via path traversal while serving expanded javadoc files. ### Details The problem lies in the way how the expanded javadoc files are served. The `GET /javadoc/{repository}/<gav>/raw/<resource>` route uses the `<resource>` path parameter to find the file in the `javadocUnpackPath` directory and returns it's content to the user. [JavadocFacade.kt#L77](https://github.com/dzikoysk/reposilite/blob/68b73f19dc9811ccf10936430cf17f7b0e622bd6/reposilite-backend/src/main/kotlin/com/reposilite/javadocs/JavadocFacade.kt#L77): ```kotlin fun findRawJavadocResource(request: JavadocRawRequest): Result<JavadocRawResponse, ErrorResponse> = with (request) { mavenFacade.canAccessResource(accessToken, repository, gav) .flatMap { javadocContainerService.loadContainer(accessToken, repository, gav) } .filter({ Files.exists(it.javadocUnpackPath.resolve(resource.toString())) }, { notFound("Resourc...

### Summary Unclear documentation of the error behavior in `ParseWithClaims` can lead to situation where users are potentially not checking errors in the way they should be. Especially, if a token is both expired and invalid, the errors returned by `ParseWithClaims` return both error codes. If users only check for the `jwt.ErrTokenExpired ` using `error.Is`, they will ignore the embedded `jwt.ErrTokenSignatureInvalid` and thus potentially accept invalid tokens. ### Fix We have back-ported the error handling logic from the `v5` branch to the `v4` branch. In this logic, the `ParseWithClaims` function will immediately return in "dangerous" situations (e.g., an invalid signature), limiting the combined errors only to situations where the signature is valid, but further validation failed (e.g., if the signature is valid, but is expired AND has the wrong audience). This fix is part of the 4.5.1 release. ### Workaround We are aware that this changes the behaviour of an established funct...