CWE-190

An Integer Overflow exists in Accops HyWorks Windows Client prior to v 3.2.8.200. The IOCTL Handler 0x22001B in the Accops HyWorks Windows Client prior to v 3.2.8.200 allow local attackers to execute arbitrary code in kernel mode or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and OS crash) via specially crafted I/O Request Packet.

An Integer Overflow vulnerability exists in Accops HyWorks Windows Client prior to v 3.2.8.200. The IOCTL Handler 0x22005B in the Accops HyWorks Windows Client prior to v 3.2.8.200 allow local attackers to execute arbitrary code in kernel mode or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and OS crash) via specially crafted I/O Request Packet.

A flaw was found in the QXL display device emulation in QEMU. An integer overflow in the cursor_alloc() function can lead to the allocation of a small cursor object followed by a subsequent heap-based buffer overflow. This flaw allows a malicious privileged guest user to crash the QEMU process on the host or potentially execute arbitrary code within the context of the QEMU process.

The gmp plugin in strongSwan before 5.9.4 has a remote integer overflow via a crafted certificate with an RSASSA-PSS signature. For example, this can be triggered by an unrelated self-signed CA certificate sent by an initiator. Remote code execution cannot occur.

The in-memory certificate cache in strongSwan before 5.9.4 has a remote integer overflow upon receiving many requests with different certificates to fill the cache and later trigger the replacement of cache entries. The code attempts to select a less-often-used cache entry by means of a random number generator, but this is not done correctly. Remote code execution might be a slight possibility.

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROS M2100 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS M2200 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS M969 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC20 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC30 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC40 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC41 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RMC8388 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RP110 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS400 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS401 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS416v2 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000A (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000H (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS8000T (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900 (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900G (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900GP (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS900W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS910 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS910L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS910W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS920L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS920W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS930L (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS930W (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS940G (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RS969 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100 (32M) (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2100P (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2200 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2288 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2300P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG2488 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG907R (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG908C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG909R (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG910C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSG920P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RSL910 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228 (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST2228P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916C (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS RST916P (All versions < V5.6.0), RUGGEDCOM ROS i800 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS i801 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS i802 (All versions), RUGGEDCOM ROS i803 (All versions). Within a third-party component, the process to allocate partition size fails to check memory boundaries. Therefore, if a large amount is requested by an attacker, due to an integer-wrap around, it could result in a small size being allocated instead.