Vulnerabilities > Libexpat Project
| DATE | CVE | VULNERABILITY TITLE | RISK |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-30 | CVE-2024-45490 | XXE vulnerability in Libexpat Project Libexpat An issue was discovered in libexpat before 2.6.3. | 7.5 |
| 2024-08-30 | CVE-2024-45491 | Integer Overflow or Wraparound vulnerability in Libexpat Project Libexpat An issue was discovered in libexpat before 2.6.3. | 9.8 |
| 2024-08-30 | CVE-2024-45492 | Integer Overflow or Wraparound vulnerability in Libexpat Project Libexpat An issue was discovered in libexpat before 2.6.3. | 9.8 |
| 2024-02-04 | CVE-2023-52425 | Resource Exhaustion vulnerability in Libexpat Project Libexpat libexpat through 2.5.0 allows a denial of service (resource consumption) because many full reparsings are required in the case of a large token for which multiple buffer fills are needed. | 7.5 |
| 2024-02-04 | CVE-2023-52426 | XML Entity Expansion vulnerability in Libexpat Project Libexpat libexpat through 2.5.0 allows recursive XML Entity Expansion if XML_DTD is undefined at compile time. | 5.5 |
| 2022-10-24 | CVE-2022-43680 | Use After Free vulnerability in multiple products In libexpat through 2.4.9, there is a use-after free caused by overeager destruction of a shared DTD in XML_ExternalEntityParserCreate in out-of-memory situations. | 7.5 |
| 2022-09-14 | CVE-2022-40674 | Use After Free vulnerability in multiple products libexpat before 2.4.9 has a use-after-free in the doContent function in xmlparse.c. | 8.1 |
| 2022-02-18 | CVE-2022-25313 | Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in multiple products In Expat (aka libexpat) before 2.4.5, an attacker can trigger stack exhaustion in build_model via a large nesting depth in the DTD element. | 6.5 |
| 2022-02-18 | CVE-2022-25314 | Integer Overflow or Wraparound vulnerability in multiple products In Expat (aka libexpat) before 2.4.5, there is an integer overflow in copyString. | 7.5 |
| 2022-02-18 | CVE-2022-25315 | Integer Overflow or Wraparound vulnerability in multiple products In Expat (aka libexpat) before 2.4.5, there is an integer overflow in storeRawNames. | 9.8 |