The ELF file parser in Bitdefender 7.2, Comodo Antivirus 7424, eSafe 7.0.17.0, F-Secure Anti-Virus 9.0.16160.0, McAfee Anti-Virus Scanning Engine 5.400.0.1158, McAfee Gateway (formerly Webwasher) 2010.1C, nProtect Anti-Virus 2011-01-17.01, Sophos Anti-Virus 4.61.0, and Rising Antivirus 22.83.00.03 allows remote attackers to bypass malware detection via an ELF file with a \19\04\00\10 character sequence at a certain location. NOTE: this may later be SPLIT into multiple CVEs if additional information is published showing that the error occurred independently in different ELF parser implementations.

The ELF file parser in Bitdefender 7.2, Command Antivirus 5.2.11.5, Comodo Antivirus 7424, eSafe 7.0.17.0, F-Prot Antivirus 4.6.2.117, F-Secure Anti-Virus 9.0.16160.0, McAfee Gateway (formerly Webwasher) 2010.1C, nProtect Anti-Virus 2011-01-17.01, Sophos Anti-Virus 4.61.0, and Rising Antivirus 22.83.00.03 allows remote attackers to bypass malware detection via an ELF file with a \4a\46\49\46 character sequence at a certain location. NOTE: this may later be SPLIT into multiple CVEs if additional information is published showing that the error occurred independently in different ELF parser implementations.

Product security bypass vulnerability in ACC prior to version 8.3.4 allows a locally logged-in attacker with administrator privileges to bypass the execution controls provided by ACC using the utilman program.

McAfee Total Protection prior to 16.0.51 allows attackers to trick a victim into uninstalling the application via the command prompt.

McAfee Total Protection prior to 16.0.50 allows attackers to elevate user privileges due to Improper Link Resolution via registry keys. This could enable a user with lower privileges to execute unauthorized tasks.

McAfee Total Protection prior to 16.0.50 may allow an adversary (with full administrative access) to modify a McAfee specific Component Object Model (COM) in the Windows Registry. This can result in the loading of a malicious payload.

McAfee Total Protection prior to 16.0.49 allows attackers to elevate user privileges due to DLL sideloading. This could enable a user with lower privileges to execute unauthorized tasks.

A command injection vulnerability in Trellix Intelligent Sandbox CLI for version 5.2 and earlier, allows a local user to inject and execute arbitrary operating system commands using specially crafted strings. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments that are passed to specific CLI command. The vulnerability allows the attack

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.

CSRF in ePO leading to privilege escalation

A Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in ePolicy Orchestrator prior to 5.10.0 CP1 Update 2 allows a remote low privilege user to successfully add a new user with administrator privileges to the ePO server. This impacts the dashboard area of the user interface. To exploit this the attacker must change the HTTP payload post submission, prior to it reaching the ePO server.

An open redirect vulnerability in ePolicy Orchestrator prior to 5.10.0 CP1 Update 2, allows a remote low privileged user to modify the URL parameter for the purpose of redirecting URL request(s) to a malicious site. This impacts the dashboard area of the user interface. A user would need to be logged into ePO to trigger this vulnerability. To exploit this the attacker must change the HTTP payload post submission, prior to it reaching the ePO server.

McAfee Safe Connect before 2.16.1.126 may allow an adversary with system privileges to achieve privilege escalation by loading arbitrary DLLs.

A reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in ePO prior to 5.10 SP1 Update 1allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to potentially obtain access to an ePO administrator's session by convincing the authenticated ePO administrator to click on a carefully crafted link. This would lead to limited access to sensitive information and limited ability to alter some information in ePO.

An improper privilege management vulnerability in McAfee Security Scan Plus (MSS+) before 4.1.262.1 could allow a local user to modify a configuration file and perform a LOLBin (Living off the land) attack. This could result in the user gaining elevated permissions and being able to execute arbitrary code due to lack of an integrity check of the configuration file.