====== Differences ====== This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
start [2017/06/27 15:58] 74.94.151.157 created |
start [2017/06/27 16:26] (current) nribaudo |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | Comrex Version Security Concerns and Firmware Fixes | + | **Comrex Version Security Concerns and Firmware Fixes** |
- | ^ Security Concern ^ Any Comrex Products Affected? ^ Product(s) Affected ^ | + | |
- | | Row 1 Col 1 | Row 1 Col 2 | Row 1 Col 3 | | + | |
- | | Row 2 Col 1 | some colspan (note the double pipe) || | + | ^ Security Concern ^ Any Comrex Products Affected? ^ Product(s) Affected ^ Minimum Secure Firmware Version ^ |
- | | Row 3 Col 1 | Row 3 Col 2 | Row 3 Col 3 | | + | | **Dropbear SSH** vulnerability for versions prior to 2016.74 | **YES** | ACCESS 2USB, ACCESS Rackmount, BRIC-Link, and BRIC-Link II | 4.0p10 | |
+ | | A high-severity vulnerability has been reported in Linux that could be exploited by a low privilege attacker to gain full root access on an affected system. The vulnerability, identified as CVE-2017-1000367, was discovered by researchers at Qualys Security in Sudo's "get_process_ttyname()" function for Linux that could allow a user with Sudo privileges to run commands as root or elevate privileges to root. | **NO** | | | | | ||
+ | | A new vulnerability has been found that potentially affects most versions of the Linux and Unix operating systems, in addition to Mac OS X (which is based around Unix). Known as the “**Bash Bug**” or “**ShellShock**,” the GNU Bash Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2014-6271) could allow an attacker to gain control over a targeted computer if exploited successfully. | **NO** | | | | ||
+ | | **Stack-based Buffer Overflow - CVE-2015-7547**. The glibc DNS client side resolver is vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow when the getaddrinfo() library function is used. Software using this function may be exploited with attacker-controlled domain names, attacker-controlled DNS servers, or through a man-in-the-middle attack. | **NO** | | | |