Aggregator

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Linux Kernel up to 6.6.43/6.10.2. This vulnerability affects the function rx_len of the component microchip-core. Executing a manipulation can lead to buffer overflow. This vulnerability appears as CVE-2024-42279. The attacker needs to be present on the local network. There is no available exploit. You should upgrade the affected component.

A vulnerability was found in Linux Kernel up to 6.10.2. It has been classified as problematic. The impacted element is an unknown function of the component RDMA. The manipulation leads to denial of service. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2024-43872. The attack needs to be initiated within the local network. No exploit is available. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

A vulnerability was found in Linux Kernel up to 6.10.4. It has been classified as problematic. The impacted element is the function nvme_uninit_ctrl. The manipulation leads to improper update of reference count. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2024-43913. The attack can only be initiated within the local network. No exploit exists. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in Linux Kernel up to 6.6.46/6.10.5. The impacted element is the function f2fs_bug_on of the file fs/f2fs/inline.c. Performing a manipulation results in information disclosure. This vulnerability is cataloged as CVE-2024-44942. The attack must originate from the local network. There is no exploit available. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.

A vulnerability categorized as critical has been discovered in Linux Kernel up to 6.6.46/6.10.5. Affected is the function sanity_check_extent_cache. Such manipulation leads to use after free. This vulnerability is referenced as CVE-2024-44941. The attack needs to be initiated within the local network. No exploit is available. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

无堆泄露的 tcache 劫持

I ricercatori non riescono a spiegare del tutto perché le minacce informatiche in Italia siano così diverse rispetto a quelle di qualsiasi altro Paese.

本文记录了 PKWCTF 系列题目中的 Web 安全解题思路与实践过程，围绕不同场景下的漏洞分析与利用展开。内容涵盖 SUID 提权、Git 源码泄露、PHP 反序列化、XSS、文件上传与文件包含、XXE、SSTI、SQL 注入、CSRF、越权访问及业务逻辑漏洞等多个方向，并结合具体题目分析漏洞成因、关键线索与利用方式。通过对请求参数、源码逻辑、权限校验及数据处理流程的逐步分析，总结常见 Web

Обычная процедура удалённого доступа неожиданно превращается в ловушку для доверчивого оператора.

0xgame 2026 week2密码方向全解wp

一句话:PyJWT ≤ 2.13.0 用一个严格结构正则来判断"这段字节是不是非对称公钥",而底层 cryptography 库的 PEM 加载器接受比它宽松得多的格式。两者接受范围的差集,使公开公钥可以被当作 HMAC 对称密钥使用——只要验证端的算法允许列表混用了 HMAC 与非对称算法,知道公钥的任何人就能伪造通过验证的令牌。

漏洞编号 CVE-2026-76169,GitHub 安全通告编号 GHSA-p68q-wchp-6fh7。一句话描述:fastify 在 >= 4.0.0, < 5.12.2 版本中,内部 404 路由器处理畸形 URL 时,通过一个跨插件共享的 handler 指针,直接调用"最后注册"的封装 404 处理器——插件前缀被完全忽略,该处理器声明的 preHandler 等全部生命周期钩子也一并

编译器不告警，静态分析不出声，valgrind 零错误——这 4 个字节只能自己去读。

vmx，vc，vhd，挂载方式考察的挺全面的

自weax勒索病毒开始使用0day攻击国内应用系统以来，我们一直在持续跟进。

这是一篇快报，长话短说。 近日我们收到一起企业应急求助，上机排查后发现，受害服务器上的文件被批量加密，扩展名被追加为一个此前从未见过的新后缀 .ths，每个目录下均留有名为hello.txt 的勒索信。经过比对分析，我们确认这不是新家族，而是我们长期跟踪的 Sorry 勒索病毒（TellYouThePass 勒索家族）卷土重来，换了一个新名字继续作案。 考虑到该家族惯用 0day 发起攻击，传播速

(本文首发于个人博客：https://23w-8h.github.io/2026/10/20/Whitechain-%E8%B7%A8%E9%93%BE%E6%A1%A5%E6%BC%8F%E6%B4%9E%E6%8C%96%E6%8E%98%E5%A4%8D%E7%9B%98%EF%BC%9A%E4%BB%8E%E6%BA%90%E7%A0%81%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E5%88%

Symantec’s Threat Hunter Team has found an unauthorized relay service that installs the genuine OpenAI Codex and Anthropic Claude Code CLIs, then rewrites their settings to turn off sandboxing. It has affected 12 organizations since early 2026, mostly in mainland China. Codex Claude Code relays AI coding agents read files, write code, and run commands […]

The post Unauthorized Codex and Claude Code Relays Disable Security Protections at 12 Organizations appeared first on GBHackers Security | #1 Globally Trusted Cyber Security News Platform.

一次普通的 Web 安全测试中，我成功绕过了目标 WAF 的部分规则，却没有找到实际可利用的 SQL 注入。随着测试继续进行，目标的防护行为似乎发生了变化。尝试切换 Tor 后，我原本以为改变出口 IP 就意味着“换了一个身份”，但实际表现却让我开始重新思考：一个防御系统究竟是如何判断，现在的我和刚才的我，仍然属于同一个攻击者？ 本文从这次测试经历出发，结合 Fingerprint、行为关联、风险

程序最终调用到的那份实现,不是代码里写定的,而是加载器在启动时按“搜索顺序”裁决出来的。glibc 对同名符号的裁决规则是:主程序排最前,接着是 LD_PRELOAD 注入的库,然后是依赖图广度优先、先定义者胜。攻击者不碰任何目标 ELF,只靠改环境变量、调依赖声明顺序、选 dlopen 时机,就能让程序调用到自己构造的同名函数——把同名函数做成新旧两版,就是一次加载期降级;把目标换成 suid