Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-43762PUBLISHED: 2023-02-08Lack of verification in B&R APROL Tbase server versions < R 4.2-07 may lead to memory leaks when receiving messages
CVE-2022-43763PUBLISHED: 2023-02-08Insufficient check of preconditions could lead to Denial of Service conditions when calling commands on the Tbase server of B&R APROL versions < R 4.2-07.
CVE-2022-43764PUBLISHED: 2023-02-08Insufficient validation of input parameters when changing configuration on Tbase server in B&R APROL versions < R 4.2-07 could result in buffer overflow. This may lead to Denial-of-Service conditions or execution of arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-43765PUBLISHED: 2023-02-08B&R APROL versions < R 4.2-07 doesn’t process correctly specially formatted data packages sent to port 55502/tcp, which may allow a network based attacker to cause an application Denial-of-Service.
CVE-2022-2094PUBLISHED: 2023-02-08The Yellow Yard Searchbar WordPress plugin before 2.8.2 does not escape some URL parameters before outputting them back to the user, leading to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting
User Rank: Ninja
8/28/2014 | 9:22:20 AM
Almost every time, the public will connect/attribute the brand to the breach problem, not the franchisee or contractor. Occasionally, the brand can brush off the connection if the problem has particulars regarding specific employees or activities at a specific facility or area. But when a problem is pervasive across multiple stores or facilities, the brand CANNOT avoid the attribution no matter how many statements they may make.
To me, this is a classic example of poor executive decision making where the management mindset is to divert blame away from the crystal corporate palace.
For me, I would have more confidence and respect for any organization that is willing to stand up to the problem at hand, accept blame even if it really isn't their fault, and attest to (and follow through with) broad measures focused on full and proper remediation.