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: Apprentice
9/21/2016 | 12:36:46 PM
That said, Tesla's remote breach appears to demonstrate a lack of internal validation -- it was possible, for example, to open the trunk while the car was in motion, which is something you'd expect code to prevent.
If you allow remote control, a logical question to ask is, "what happens when a hacker gains remote access?" It's probably unreasonably optimistic to assume a remote attack isn't possible; it's also probably unappealing to mitigate this possibility by requiring confirmation -- especially that which requires physical interaction with the device -- whenever remote control is requested. Security and usability are opposites...