Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15864PUBLISHED: 2021-01-17An issue was discovered in Quali CloudShell 9.3. An XSS vulnerability in the login page allows an attacker to craft a URL, with a constructor.constructor substring in the username field, that executes a payload when the user visits the /Account/Login page.
CVE-2021-3113PUBLISHED: 2021-01-17
Netsia SEBA+ through 0.16.1 build 70-e669dcd7 allows remote attackers to discover session cookies via a direct /session/list/allActiveSession request. For example, the attacker can discover the admin's cookie if the admin account happens to be logged in when the allActiveSession request occurs, and ...
CVE-2020-25533PUBLISHED: 2021-01-15
An issue was discovered in Malwarebytes before 4.0 on macOS. A malicious application was able to perform a privileged action within the Malwarebytes launch daemon. The privileged service improperly validated XPC connections by relying on the PID instead of the audit token. An attacker can construct ...
CVE-2021-3162PUBLISHED: 2021-01-15Docker Desktop Community before 2.5.0.0 on macOS mishandles certificate checking, leading to local privilege escalation.
CVE-2021-21242PUBLISHED: 2021-01-15
OneDev is an all-in-one devops platform. In OneDev before version 4.0.3, there is a critical vulnerability which can lead to pre-auth remote code execution. AttachmentUploadServlet deserializes untrusted data from the `Attachment-Support` header. This Servlet does not enforce any authentication or a...
User Rank: Apprentice
8/6/2014 | 11:58:58 AM
That means they are complementary, like the yin and the yang, the masculine and the feminine.
In the same way, you would protect your systems on your network each themselves, but you also make sure no one can reach them if you don't need them to be able to be reached. Those things are also orthogonal.
In IPv6, the idea seems to be that we don't need network encapsulation anymore (NAT) because some moron says "most attacks are coming from application vulnerabilities anyway". But protecting your systems (internally) is orthogonal to not letting outside attackers in without invitations (a firewall) - you can do both at the same time, independent of one another (that's what orthogonal means).
So these are two different directions or dimensions and you can travel both whenever you like, both at the same time, only one and not the other, etcetera.
You can bolster your credentials-that-are-bound-to-one-user based model and at the same time bolster your "you are in unknown territory friend, and I have the upper hand here" model.
It is utterly foolish to suggest that a system needs to be secury only by way of its essential technical design.
A thief that knows a map of your palace will be a much harder threat than someone accidentally stumbling in.
Any thief knows this, so why don't the guards??
Technical open source systems are by definition vulnerable to mass exploits.
Obfuscated systems are, by definition, not.
At the same time, obfuscated systems are vulnerable to single-point attacks. Open source systems are not more vulnerable to those kinds of attacks, than to mass attacks.
Therefore you use both kinds of defense at the same time, and you use both of them to your maximum extent or capability.