CVE-2020-16920

iperf3 3.20–3.21 (esnet/iperf) has a pre-auth heap buffer overflow in decrypt_rsa_message(): a 256-byte RSA buffer is BIO_read with the attacker-controlled ciphertext length (guard warns only), so an unauthenticated client overflows the heap via an oversized authtoken; fixed in 3.22

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently restrict which account a certificate could be assigned to. This could allow an attacker to associate a certificate with another user's account, affecting the confidentiality and integrity of that account's encrypted mail and, where certificate-based login is enabled, potentially permitting unauthorized access to the account.

A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) weakness in Kiteworks Core could allow an unauthenticated attacker to store crafted content that later executes arbitrary JavaScript in the authenticated session of an administrator who views the affected page. This could have permitted the attacker to gain full administrative control, including the creation of a new administrative account.

Kiteworks Core did not correctly validate a parameter submitted to the password reset workflow. An unauthenticated attacker who knew the email address of a user with a locally stored password could potentially reset that account's password without access to the emailed reset link and then authenticate as that user, including where the account holds administrative privileges.

Improper authentication in a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrative service. An administrative service in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not consistently enforce administrator authentication, so the required password check could be bypassed. An attacker who referenced a valid administrator account could potentially create, modify, or delete internal users and managed domains and change their security-feature configuration without authenticating; deleting a managed domain also removes its user accounts and could lock administrators out of the gateway.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or unintended network destinations while the gateway renders message content referencing external resources. This could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or unintended network destinations while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. This could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or unintended network destinations while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. This could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A remote, unauthenticated attacker can induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or unintended network destinations while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. This could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. The gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state.