Filtered by vendor Synology
Subscriptions
Filtered by product Skynas
Subscriptions
Total
29 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-3156 | 9 Beyondtrust, Debian, Fedoraproject and 6 more | 38 Privilege Management For Mac, Privilege Management For Unix\/linux, Debian Linux and 35 more | 2025-11-10 | 7.8 High |
| Sudo before 1.9.5p2 contains an off-by-one error that can result in a heap-based buffer overflow, which allows privilege escalation to root via "sudoedit -s" and a command-line argument that ends with a single backslash character. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26561 | 1 Synology | 7 Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller, Skynas and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | 9 Critical |
| Stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in synoagentregisterd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via syno_finder_site HTTP header. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26567 | 2 Faad2 Project, Synology | 8 Faad2, Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller and 5 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.8 High |
| Stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in frontend/main.c in faad2 before 2.2.7.1 allow local attackers to execute arbitrary code via filename and pathname options. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26563 | 1 Synology | 7 Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller, Skynas and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | 8.2 High |
| Incorrect authorization vulnerability in synoagentregisterd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.4-25553 allows local users to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26564 | 1 Synology | 7 Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller, Skynas and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | 8.3 High |
| Cleartext transmission of sensitive information vulnerability in synorelayd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers via an HTTP session. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26565 | 1 Synology | 7 Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller, Skynas and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | 8.3 High |
| Cleartext transmission of sensitive information vulnerability in synorelayd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain sensitive information via an HTTP session. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26566 | 1 Synology | 7 Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller, Skynas and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | 8.3 High |
| Insertion of sensitive information into sent data vulnerability in synorelayd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary commands via inbound QuickConnect traffic. | ||||
| CVE-2017-5753 | 14 Arm, Canonical, Debian and 11 more | 396 Cortex-a12, Cortex-a12 Firmware, Cortex-a15 and 393 more | 2025-01-14 | 5.6 Medium |
| Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and branch prediction may allow unauthorized disclosure of information to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis. | ||||
| CVE-2018-13281 | 1 Synology | 3 Diskstation Manager, Skynas, Vs960hd | 2025-01-14 | N/A |
| Information exposure vulnerability in SYNO.Core.ACL in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2-23739-2 allows remote authenticated users to determine the existence and obtain the metadata of arbitrary files via the file_path parameter. | ||||
| CVE-2018-7170 | 4 Hpe, Netapp, Ntp and 1 more | 10 Hpux-ntp, Hci, Solidfire and 7 more | 2025-01-14 | 5.3 Medium |
| ntpd in ntp 4.2.x before 4.2.8p7 and 4.3.x before 4.3.92 allows authenticated users that know the private symmetric key to create arbitrarily-many ephemeral associations in order to win the clock selection of ntpd and modify a victim's clock via a Sybil attack. This issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-1549. | ||||
| CVE-2018-7185 | 6 Canonical, Hpe, Netapp and 3 more | 23 Ubuntu Linux, Hpux-ntp, Hci and 20 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.5 High |
| The protocol engine in ntp 4.2.6 before 4.2.8p11 allows a remote attackers to cause a denial of service (disruption) by continually sending a packet with a zero-origin timestamp and source IP address of the "other side" of an interleaved association causing the victim ntpd to reset its association. | ||||
| CVE-2020-27650 | 1 Synology | 3 Diskstation Manager, Skynas, Skynas Firmware | 2025-01-14 | 5.8 Medium |
| Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-2 does not set the Secure flag for the session cookie in an HTTPS session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an HTTP session. | ||||
| CVE-2020-27648 | 1 Synology | 3 Diskstation Manager, Skynas, Skynas Firmware | 2025-01-14 | 8.3 High |
| Improper certificate validation vulnerability in OpenVPN client in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-2 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via a crafted certificate. | ||||
| CVE-2020-27652 | 1 Synology | 3 Diskstation Manager, Skynas, Skynas Firmware | 2025-01-14 | 8.3 High |
| Algorithm downgrade vulnerability in QuickConnect in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-2 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof servers and obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26562 | 1 Synology | 7 Diskstation Manager, Diskstation Manager Unified Controller, Skynas and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | 9 Critical |
| Out-of-bounds write vulnerability in synoagentregisterd in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 6.2.3-25426-3 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via syno_finder_site HTTP header. | ||||
| CVE-2018-1160 | 3 Debian, Netatalk, Synology | 7 Debian Linux, Netatalk, Diskstation Manager and 4 more | 2025-01-14 | N/A |
| Netatalk before 3.1.12 is vulnerable to an out of bounds write in dsi_opensess.c. This is due to lack of bounds checking on attacker controlled data. A remote unauthenticated attacker can leverage this vulnerability to achieve arbitrary code execution. | ||||
| CVE-2019-9511 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 29 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 26 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.5 High |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. | ||||
| CVE-2019-9513 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 25 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 22 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.5 High |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. | ||||
| CVE-2019-9514 | 13 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 10 more | 44 Traffic Server, Mac Os X, Swiftnio and 41 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.5 High |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. | ||||
| CVE-2019-9517 | 12 Apache, Apple, Canonical and 9 more | 28 Http Server, Traffic Server, Mac Os X and 25 more | 2025-01-14 | 7.5 High |
| Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both. | ||||