#vulnerability

### Overview The authentication tag of encrypted JWEs can be brute forced, which may result in loss of confidentiality for those JWEs and provide ways to craft arbitrary JWEs. ### Impact - JWEs can be modified to decrypt to an arbitrary value - JWEs can be decrypted by observing parsing differences - The GCM internal [GHASH key](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois/Counter_Mode#:~:text=\)%20is%20the-,hash%20key,-%2C%20a%20string%20of) can be recovered ### Am I Affected? You are affected by this vulnerability even if you do not use an `AES-GCM` encryption algorithm for your JWEs. ### Patches The version 1.1.1 fixes the issue by adding the tag length check for the `AES-GCM` algorithm. **Important:** As the [GHASH key](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois/Counter_Mode#:~:text=\)%20is%20the-,hash%20key,-%2C%20a%20string%20of) could have leaked, you must rotate the encryption keys after upgrading to version 1.1.1. ### References [Félix Charette talk at NorthSec 2025 about the issue](h...

## Impact Cloudflare quiche was discovered to be vulnerable to an infinite loop when sending packets containing RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames. QUIC connections possess a set of connection identifiers (IDs); see [Section 5.1 of RFC 9000](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#section-5.1). Once the QUIC handshake completes, a local endpoint is responsible for issuing and retiring Connection IDs that are used by the remote peer to populate the Destination Connection ID field in packets sent from remote to local. Each Connection ID has a sequence number to ensure synchronization between peers An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by first completing a handshake and then sending a specially-crafted set of frames that trigger a connection ID retirement in the victim. When the victim attempts to send a packet containing RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frames, [Section 19.16 of RFC 9000](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#section-19.16) requires that the se...

## Impact In versions 0.8.5 and earlier of uv, remote ZIP archives were handled in a streamwise fashion, and file entries were not reconciled against the archive's central directory. This enabled two parser differentials against other Python package installers: 1. An attacker could contrive a ZIP archive that would extract with legitimate contents on some package installers, and malicious contents on others due to multiple local file entries. The attacker could choose which installer to target. 2. An attacker could contrive a "stacked" ZIP input with multiple internal ZIPs, which would be handled differently by different package installers. The attacker could choose which installer to target. In both cases, the outcome is that an attacker can produce a ZIP with a consistent digest that expands differently with different installers. The [ZIP standard](https://pkware.cachefly.net/webdocs/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT) is ambiguous with respect to these behavior differentials. Consequently,...

A string of US armory break-ins, kept quiet by authorities for months, points to a growing security crisis—and signs of an inside job.

Researchers found that an encryption algorithm likely used by law enforcement and special forces can have weaknesses that could allow an attacker to listen in.

Can AI really write safer code? Martin dusts off his software engineer skills to put it it to the test. Find out what AI code failed at, and what it was surprisingly good at. Also, we discuss new research on how AI LLM models can be used to assist in the reverse engineering of malware.

An issue in Ollama v0.1.33 allows attackers to delete arbitrary files via sending a crafted packet to the endpoint /api/pull.

## Summary When using `Card.get_model`, `skops` allows for arbitrary code execution. This is due to the fact that `Card.get_model` allows both `joblib` and `skops` to be used for loading models, and as is well known, `joblib` allows for arbitrary code execution when loading objects. I do not know if this is intended or not, but I found this really concerning for a library that is founded on security. Even if intended, I kindly ask you to consider the security implications of this, disclose the potential implications through an advisory, and change the behavior of the function in future library versions (see below for possible fixes). ## What is the issue? The `Card.get_model` function allows loading models using the `get_model` method. When a `.skops` model is provided, it uses the `load` function from `skops`, which is secure to our knowledge. The `Card` class also allows consistent management of the `trusted` list, allowing it to be passed during instance creation. As expected, if...

## Summary There is an Open Redirection vulnerability in the trailing slash redirection logic when handling paths with double slashes. This allows an attacker to redirect users to arbitrary external domains by crafting URLs such as `https://mydomain.com//malicious-site.com/`. This increases the risk of phishing and other social engineering attacks. This affects Astro >=5.2.0 sites that use on-demand rendering (SSR) with the Node or Cloudflare adapter. It does not affect static sites, or sites deployed to Netlify or Vercel. ## Background Astro performs automatic redirection to the canonical URL, either adding or removing trailing slashes according to the value of the [`trailingSlash`](https://docs.astro.build/en/reference/configuration-reference/#trailingslash) configuration option. It follows the following rules: - If `trailingSlash` is set to `"never"`, `https://example.com/page/` will redirect to `https://example.com/page` - If `trailingSlash` is set to `"always"`, `https://exa...

View CSAF 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CVSS v4 5.3 ATTENTION: Exploitable remotely/Low attack complexity Vendor: Yealink Equipment: IP Phones Vulnerability: Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts, Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling, Incorrect Authorization, Improper Certificate Validation 2. RISK EVALUATION Successful exploitation of these vulnerabilities could result in an information disclosure. 3. TECHNICAL DETAILS 3.1 AFFECTED PRODUCTS The following versions of Yealink IP products are affected: SIP-T19P_E2: Versions prior to 53.84.0.121 SIP-T21P_E2: Versions prior to 52.84.0.121 SIP-T23G: Versions prior to 44.84.0.121 SIP-T40G: Versions prior to 76.84.0.121 SIP-T40P: Versions prior to 54.84.0.121 SIP-T27G: Versions prior to 69.84.0.121 SIP-T41S: Versions prior to 66.84.0.121 SIP-T42S: Versions prior to 66.84.0.121 SIP-T46S: Versions prior to 66.84.0.121 SIP- T48S: Versions prior to 66.84.0.121 SIP-CP920: Versions prior to 78.84.0.121 SIP-T53: Versions p...