Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-2867PUBLISHED: 2022-08-17libtiff's tiffcrop utility has a uint32_t underflow that can lead to out of bounds read and write. An attacker who supplies a crafted file to tiffcrop (likely via tricking a user to run tiffcrop on it with certain parameters) could cause a crash or in some cases, further exploitation.
CVE-2022-2868PUBLISHED: 2022-08-17libtiff's tiffcrop utility has a improper input validation flaw that can lead to out of bounds read and ultimately cause a crash if an attacker is able to supply a crafted file to tiffcrop.
CVE-2022-2869PUBLISHED: 2022-08-17
libtiff's tiffcrop tool has a uint32_t underflow which leads to out of bounds read and write in the extractContigSamples8bits routine. An attacker who supplies a crafted file to tiffcrop could trigger this flaw, most likely by tricking a user into opening the crafted file with tiffcrop. Triggering t...
CVE-2022-28751PUBLISHED: 2022-08-17The Zoom Client for Meetings for MacOS (Standard and for IT Admin) before version 5.11.3 contains a vulnerability in the package signature validation during the update process. A local low-privileged user could exploit this vulnerability to escalate their privileges to root.
CVE-2022-28752PUBLISHED: 2022-08-17Zoom Rooms for Conference Rooms for Windows versions before 5.11.0 are susceptible to a Local Privilege Escalation vulnerability. A local low-privileged malicious user could exploit this vulnerability to escalate their privileges to the SYSTEM user.
User Rank: Apprentice
3/17/2018 | 3:08:08 PM
First, anyone that has actuallty read the proposed legislation in 18 states would notice that the only information, firmware, parts, tools and diagnostics required are those ALREADY being provided to thousands of repair techs around the world. None of this information is secret, and most of it is arleady available illegally in asia. Legislation is carefully targeted for the sole purpose of allowing legal competition for repair services at the choice of the owner.
Even when the equipment being repaired is being used for a security function (such as a security camera), the application run on cpu within the camera is irrelevant to repair. The camera either passes a signal correctly or it does not. Someone has to repair the camera, and give it back to the owner. Its the owner that cares about his or her security -- and its still the owner that gets to decide whom to trust for repair.
If anyone has any doubts of the responsibility of the OEM to protect the security of the owner, just read the purchase contract closely, Every contract always dislaims responsibility for how equipment is used and carefull limits their risk and potential damages in that contract.
As to actual cyber risk -- equipnent is either secure by design, or insecure. Sadly, millions of IOT devices are being thrown into the marketplace with weak or absent security -- allowing botnets and other hacks to proliferate worldwide. These devices are already up and running and attached to a network, unlike devices which are broken and offline. Equipment under repair is among the most secure because its offline.
Opponents to Right to Repair have gleefully suggested that consumers will lose personal data without any explaination of how that might happen. We've yet to hear of anyone losing personal data as the result of an iPhone repair -- because Apple does an excellent job of security and encryption. Apple has even stated publically that despite their source code being posted on the internet, personal security was never at risk.
Happy to discuss any real examples of how repair as a business has made IOT devices less secure.