CPE Details
Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine 4.7
4.7
2019-12-04
17h33 +00:00
17h33 +00:00
2019-12-04
17h33 +00:00
17h33 +00:00
Alerte pour un CPE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CPE.
CPE Name: cpe:2.3:a:redhat:cloudforms_management_engine:4.7:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
Informations
Vendor
redhatProduct
cloudforms_management_engineVersion
4.7Related CVE
| CVE ID | Published | Description | Score | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat CloudForms 4.7 and 5 is affected by CSV Injection flaw, a crafted payload stays dormant till a victim export as CSV and opens the file with Excel. Once the victim opens the file, the formula executes, triggering any number of possible events. While this is strictly not an flaw that affects the application directly, attackers could use the loosely validated parameters to trigger several attack possibilities. | 6.3 |
Medium |
||
| A high severity vulnerability was found in all active versions of Red Hat CloudForms before 5.11.7.0. The out of band OS command injection vulnerability can be exploited by authenticated attacker while setuping conversion host through Infrastructure Migration Solution. This flaw allows attacker to execute arbitrary commands on CloudForms server. | 9.1 |
Critical |
||
| Red Hat CloudForms 4.7 and 5 was vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) flaw. With the access to add Ansible Tower provider, an attacker could scan and attack systems from the internal network which are not normally accessible. | 7.1 |
High |
||
| cloudforms version, cloudforms 5.8 and cloudforms 5.9, is vulnerable to a cross-site-scripting. A flaw was found in CloudForms's v2v infrastructure mapping delete feature. A stored cross-site scripting due to improper sanitization of user input in Name field. | 5.4 |
Medium |
||
| It was found that the CloudForms before 5.6.2.2, and 5.7.0.7 did not properly apply permissions controls to VM IDs passed by users. A remote, authenticated attacker could use this flaw to execute arbitrary VMs on systems managed by CloudForms if they know the ID of the VM. | 8.8 |
High |
||
| A logic error in valid_role() in CloudForms role validation before 5.7.1.3 could allow a tenant administrator to create groups with a higher privilege level than the tenant administrator should have. This would allow an attacker with tenant administration access to elevate privileges. | 4.9 |
Medium |
||
| A number of unused delete routes are present in CloudForms before 5.7.2.1 which can be accessed via GET requests instead of just POST requests. This could allow an attacker to bypass the protect_from_forgery XSRF protection causing the routes to be used. This attack would require additional cross-site scripting or similar attacks in order to execute. | 6.5 |
Medium |
||
| A flaw was found in CloudForms before 5.9.0.22 in the self-service UI snapshot feature where the name field is not properly sanitized for HTML and JavaScript input. An attacker could use this flaw to execute a stored XSS attack on an application administrator using CloudForms. Please note that CSP (Content Security Policy) prevents exploitation of this XSS however not all browsers support CSP. | 6.5 |
Medium |
||
| CloudForms Management Engine (cfme) before 5.7.3 and 5.8.x before 5.8.1 lacks RBAC controls on certain methods in the rails application portion of CloudForms. An attacker with access could use a variety of methods within the rails application portion of CloudForms to escalate privileges. | 6.5 |
Medium |
||
| In CloudForms Management Engine (cfme) before 5.7.3 and 5.8.x before 5.8.1, it was found that privilege check is missing when invoking arbitrary methods via filtering on VMs that MiqExpression will execute that is triggerable by API users. An attacker could use this to execute actions they should not be allowed to (e.g. destroying VMs). | 8.8 |
High |
||
| The check_privileges method in vmdb/app/controllers/application_controller.rb in ManageIQ, as used in Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine (CFME), allows remote authenticated users to bypass authorization and gain privileges by leveraging improper RBAC checking, related to the rbac_user_edit action. | 8.8 |
High |
2025©
tesweb SA
