CVE Vulnerability Catalog

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.19.0, a crafted PDF with form field values can cause pypdf/generic/_appearance_stream.py appearance-stream generation to repeat invariant selection-data work inside a loop when an application updates fields with flattening enabled, resulting in excessive runtimes and application unavailability. This issue is fixed in version 6.19.0.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.18.1, a crafted PDF containing a partially malformed /FlateDecode stream with padded data can force pypdf/filters.py to use inefficient byte-by-byte decompression while the earlier recovery counter fails to advance for bytes that successfully decode, causing long runtimes and application unavailability. This is a residual issue after the malformed FlateDecode recovery fix. This issue is fixed in version 6.18.1.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.18.1, a crafted PDF can provide a TrueType or Type1 simple font with an unusually large /Widths array, causing pypdf/_font.py Font._collect_tt_t1_character_widths to process entries beyond the 256 character codes meaningful for a simple font and consume excessive memory during operations such as text extraction. This issue is fixed in version 6.18.1.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.18.1, a crafted PDF can place unusually large source-code or destination-string tokens in a font /ToUnicode mapping, causing pypdf/_cmap.py parse_bfchar to decode and retain oversized values during operations such as text extraction and consume excessive memory. This is a second follow-up to earlier /ToUnicode resource-consumption fixes and is limited to the remaining token-length path. This issue is fixed in version 6.18.1.

A function in the Kiteworks Advanced Forms component was reachable without authentication. An unauthenticated attacker could potentially use it to carry out a limited set of internal service operations on the Kiteworks platform; it did not permit access to user accounts, stored files, or form submissions.

An unauthenticated attacker could cause a file with attacker-controlled content to be written to the appliance filesystem through an administrative upload handler that did not properly authenticate the request. This did not by itself result in code execution, which would require a separate vulnerability to place the file in an executable location.

A system notification template on the Kiteworks appliance was rendered by a template engine that evaluated expressions contained in the stored template body. An authenticated System Administrator could potentially store a crafted template that executed operating-system commands on the appliance when the notification was next sent.

An administrative import function in Kiteworks Core did not verify that the requesting administrator was entitled to create the privileged integration credential being imported. A delegated administrator holding a single narrowly scoped administrative permission could therefore obtain full system administrator privileges, without any action by an existing system administrator.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code execution as the gateway service account.

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account.

A user-provisioning interface in Kiteworks Core did not verify that the requesting administrator was entitled to grant the role being assigned. An administrator whose delegated permissions covered role changes alone could therefore raise an account to full system-administrator privileges.

An identity-verification weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed the gateway to act on the Kiteworks platform on behalf of a user it had not authenticated, and to provision a platform account for an identity it did not already know. A remote, unauthenticated sender could potentially exploit this to obtain control of a platform account.

An XML parser used by Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not restrict external entity references. Where an optional, non-default message-processing feature is enabled, a remote and unauthenticated sender could potentially use a crafted message to read files accessible to the gateway service account, including cryptographic key material and credentials, and have them sent to a destination they control.

A stored XSS vulnerability in Kiteworks Core allows an administrator with a narrowly scoped delegated permission to store crafted content that executes in the authenticated session of a System Administrator. This could allow privilege escalation to full administrative control, including creating a new admin account.

The sandbox isolating document conversion on a Kiteworks appliance did not fully confine code, potentially allowing escape and execution with the service account's privileges. An attacker could read or modify application data and configuration, or disrupt the service.

A Kiteworks appliance setup interface did not confine a user-supplied file path, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to write files to arbitrary writable locations. Exploitation requires network access to the interface, which is not reachable on a fully configured appliance by default.

A form-rendering interface in Advanced Forms is reachable without authentication but returned more data than required. Anyone knowing the URL of a published form could retrieve the owner's profile and parts of deployment configuration; no passwords or tokens were exposed.

A privilege escalation vulnerability in Kiteworks could allow an attacker with code execution on one cluster node to run OS commands with elevated privileges on another node. Insufficient input validation in an internal cluster management function allowed attacker-supplied values to reach a privileged context.

A path traversal weakness in an optional, non-default administrative feature allowed an authenticated administrator to move files to unintended locations. This could potentially be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the underlying system.

A local privilege escalation vulnerability in Kiteworks could allow an attacker with an existing shell under a low-privileged service account to escalate to root privileges on the appliance.