Vulnerabilities > ZSH > High
DATE | CVE | VULNERABILITY TITLE | RISK |
---|---|---|---|
2022-02-14 | CVE-2021-45444 | In zsh before 5.8.1, an attacker can achieve code execution if they control a command output inside the prompt, as demonstrated by a %F argument. | 7.8 |
2020-02-24 | CVE-2019-20044 | Improper Check for Dropped Privileges vulnerability in multiple products In Zsh before 5.8, attackers able to execute commands can regain privileges dropped by the --no-PRIVILEGED option. | 7.8 |
2018-09-05 | CVE-2018-13259 | Improper Input Validation vulnerability in multiple products An issue was discovered in zsh before 5.6. | 7.5 |
2018-09-05 | CVE-2018-0502 | Improper Input Validation vulnerability in multiple products An issue was discovered in zsh before 5.6. | 7.5 |
2018-04-11 | CVE-2018-1100 | Classic Buffer Overflow vulnerability in multiple products zsh through version 5.4.2 is vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow in the utils.c:checkmailpath function. | 7.8 |
2018-03-28 | CVE-2018-1083 | Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerability in multiple products Zsh before version 5.4.2-test-1 is vulnerable to a buffer overflow in the shell autocomplete functionality. | 7.8 |
2018-02-27 | CVE-2018-7548 | NULL Pointer Dereference vulnerability in multiple products In subst.c in zsh through 5.4.2, there is a NULL pointer dereference when using ${(PA)...} on an empty array result. | 7.5 |
2018-02-27 | CVE-2017-18206 | Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerability in multiple products In utils.c in zsh before 5.4, symlink expansion had a buffer overflow. | 7.5 |
2018-02-27 | CVE-2016-10714 | Numeric Errors vulnerability in multiple products In zsh before 5.3, an off-by-one error resulted in undersized buffers that were intended to support PATH_MAX characters. | 7.5 |
2018-02-27 | CVE-2014-10071 | Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerability in multiple products In exec.c in zsh before 5.0.7, there is a buffer overflow for very long fds in the ">& fd" syntax. | 7.5 |