Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-30333PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09RARLAB UnRAR before 6.12 on Linux and UNIX allows directory traversal to write to files during an extract (aka unpack) operation, as demonstrated by creating a ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file. NOTE: WinRAR and Android RAR are unaffected.
CVE-2022-23066PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09
In Solana rBPF versions 0.2.26 and 0.2.27 are affected by Incorrect Calculation which is caused by improper implementation of sdiv instruction. This can lead to the wrong execution path, resulting in huge loss in specific cases. For example, the result of a sdiv instruction may decide whether to tra...
CVE-2022-28463PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08ImageMagick 7.1.0-27 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow.
CVE-2022-28470PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08marcador package in PyPI 0.1 through 0.13 included a code-execution backdoor.
CVE-2022-1620PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 in GitHub repository vim/vim prior to 8.2.4901. NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted input.
User Rank: Author
4/20/2014 | 12:38:43 PM
I don't view assurance as a black-and-white situation. And neither did the authors of the Orange Book. All the problems you mention could be easily verified by a set of automated tests delivered with the software. You don't have to get all the way to formal methods and proof-carrying code to gain assurance.
Give me some software with some reproduceable test cases, the results of some testing tools, let me know a little bit about who wrote it, what tools they used, and their process and I'm probably in a lot better situation than if I just download some code off the Internet.