#vulnerability

**Why are there no links to an update or instructions with steps that must be taken to protect from this vulnerability?** This vulnerability has already been fully mitigated by Microsoft. There is no action for users of this service to take. The purpose of this CVE is to provide further transparency. Please see Toward greater transparency: Unveiling Cloud Service CVEs for more information.

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) has been a known vulnerability class for two decades, yet it continues to surface in modern applications, including those built with the latest frameworks and cloud-native architectures. At Microsoft, we still receive a steady stream of XSS reports across our services, from legacy portals to newly deployed single-page apps.

### Summary [Python class pollution](https://blog.abdulrah33m.com/prototype-pollution-in-python/) is a novel vulnerability categorized under [CWE-915](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/915.html). The `Delta` class is vulnerable to class pollution via its constructor, and when combined with a gadget available in DeltaDiff itself, it can lead to Denial of Service and Remote Code Execution (via insecure [Pickle](https://docs.python.org/3/library/pickle.html) deserialization). The gadget available in DeepDiff allows `deepdiff.serialization.SAFE_TO_IMPORT` to be modified to allow dangerous classes such as `posix.system`, and then perform insecure Pickle deserialization via the Delta class. This potentially allows any Python code to be executed, given that the input to `Delta` is user-controlled. Depending on the application where DeepDiff is used, this can also lead to other vulnerabilities. For example, in a web application, it might be possible to bypass authentication via class po...

### Impact The attacker can validate if a user exists by checking the time login returns. This timing difference can be used to enumerate valid usernames, after which an attacker could attempt brute force attacks. ### Patches This vulnerability has been patched, implementing a timing-safe form login authenticator that ensures consistent response times regardless of whether a user exists or not. ### Technical Details The vulnerability was caused by different response times when: - A valid username was provided (password hashing occurred) - An invalid username was provided (no password hashing occurred) The fix introduces a `TimingSafeFormLoginAuthenticator` that performs a dummy password hash verification even for non-existent users, ensuring consistent timing. ### Workarounds No workarounds are available. Users should upgrade to the patched version. ### References - https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/latest/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/03-Identity_Manag...

## Summary A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of another user’s session. This occurs because user-supplied input is reflected back in the server’s response without proper sanitization or escaping, potentially enabling malicious actions such as session hijacking, credential theft, or unauthorized actions in the application. ## Details The vulnerability resides in the “Tags” input field on the /s/ajax?action=lead:addLeadTags endpoint. Although the server applies sanitization before storing the data or returning it later, the payload is executed immediately in the victim’s browser upon reflection, allowing an attacker to run arbitrary JavaScript in the user’s session. ## Impact A Reflected XSS attack can have a significant impact, allowing attackers to steal sensitive user data like cookies, redirect users to malicious websites, manipulate the web page content, and essentially take control of a user's session wi...

### Summary _A user with administrator rights can change the configuration of the mautic application and extract secrets that are not normally available._ ### Impact _An administrator who usually does not have access to certain parameters, such as database credentials, can disclose them._

### Summary Users with webhook permissions can conduct SSRF via webhooks. If they have permission to view the webhook logs, the (partial) request response is also disclosed ### Details When sending webhooks, the destination is not validated, causing SSRF. ### Impact Bypass of firewalls to interact with internal services. See https://owasp.org/Top10/A10_2021-Server-Side_Request_Forgery_%28SSRF%29/ for more potential impact. ### Resources https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Server_Side_Request_Forgery_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html for more information on SSRF and its fix

Jaguar Land Rover is restoring systems after a cyberattack disrupted production and sales, with a hacker group previously…

### Impact This only impacts apps that have the `embeddedAsarIntegrityValidation` and `onlyLoadAppFromAsar` [fuses](https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/tutorial/fuses) enabled. Apps without these fuses enabled are not impacted. Specifically this issue can only be exploited if your app is launched from a filesystem the attacker has write access too. i.e. the ability to edit files inside the `resources` folder in your app installation on Windows which these fuses are supposed to protect against. ### Workarounds There are no app side workarounds, you must update to a patched version of Electron. ### Fixed Versions * `38.0.0-beta.6` * `37.3.1` * `36.8.1` * `35.7.5` ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, email us at [security@electronjs.org](mailto:security@electronjs.org)

Google has issued updates to patch a whopping 111 Android vulnerabilities, including two actively exploited ones.