CVE Vulnerability Catalog

In agentscope 1.0.18, 1.0.19, and 1.0.19, when the RealtimeAgent session exposes execute_python_code as an available tool, a remote WebSocket user can prompt the agent to call that tool and run Python code in the service environment. In the validated path, RealtimeAgent._acting forwards the model-produced tool call to Toolkit.call_tool_function, which invokes execute_python_code without an additional approval or isolation boundary on that path.

agent-zero 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10 is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in python/helpers/file_browser.py:FileBrowser.__init__. The FileBrowser class initializes with the host root directory as the workspace, allowing the agent to access any file on the system without restriction.

agent-zero 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10 is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in python/helpers/file_browser.py:FileBrowser.save_file_b64. The save_file_b64 method accepts user-controlled file paths without normalization or validation, allowing path traversal attacks.

modelscope Agentscope v1.0.0-v1.0.8 is vulnerable to Path Traversal in insert_text_file. The vulnerability may allow access to files outside the intended directory.

modelscope Agentscope v1.0.18-v1.0.0 is vulnerable to Path Traversal in write_text_file. The vulnerability may allow writing files outside the intended directory.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.19.0, a crafted PDF can provide unusually large alphabetical page-label values that cause pypdf/_page_labels.py to generate strings beyond a reasonable page-label length when an application retrieves document page labels, consuming excessive memory and potentially making the application unavailable. This issue is fixed in version 6.19.0.

pypdf is a free and open-source pure-python PDF library. Prior to 6.19.0, a crafted PDF containing many embedded files can cause the dictionary-based attachments API in pypdf/_doc_common.py to reparse the full attachment list for each content lookup, producing repeated work and long runtimes when an application accesses the embedded-file mapping. This issue is fixed in version 6.19.0.

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.

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.

An authenticated Email Protection Gateway administrator holding only limited, delegated permissions could write files with attacker-controlled content to arbitrary locations accessible to the Email Protection Gateway service account. This exceeds the administrator's intended privileges and could be used to alter application files and configuration or to disrupt the availability of the service.

An authenticated administrator could cause the server to issue requests to, and interact with, internal network services that are not meant to be reachable through this interface. On its own this did not result in code execution.

A resource exhaustion vulnerability in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly trigger a comparatively expensive server-side operation, causing a partial denial of service.

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.

Two Kiteworks Core cluster-management operations did not validate file paths supplied to them, so an attacker holding root on one node of a cluster could write files as root onto another node and cause them to be executed there. Exploitation requires backend root access on a cluster node and a pending software patch present on the target node.