Index
Bugtraq
Pełna lista
Błędy
Sztuczki
Exploity
Dorks list
Tylko z CVE
Tylko z CWE
Bogus
Ranking
CVEMAP
Świeża lista CVE
Producenci
Produkty
Słownik CWE
Sprawdź nr. CVE
Sprawdź nr. CWE
Szukaj
W Bugtraq
W bazie CVE
Po autorze
Po nr. CVE
Po nr. CWE
Po producencie
Po produkcie
RSS
Bugtraq
CVEMAP
CVE Produkty
Tylko Błędy
Tylko Exploity
Tylko Dorks
Więcej
cIFrex
Facebook
Twitter
Donate
O bazie
Lang
Polish
English
Submit
Podatności dla
'GCC'
2022-03-26
CVE-2022-27943
CWE-400
libiberty/rust-demangle.c in GNU GCC 11.2 allows stack consumption in demangle_const, as demonstrated by nm-new.
2022-01-14
CVE-2021-46195
CWE-674
GCC v12.0 was discovered to contain an uncontrolled recursion via the component libiberty/rust-demangle.c. This vulnerability allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) by consuming excessive CPU and memory resources.
2021-11-18
CVE-2021-37322
CWE-416
GCC c++filt v2.26 was discovered to contain a use-after-free vulnerability via the component cplus-dem.c.
2019-09-02
CVE-2019-15847
CWE-331
The POWER9 backend in GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) before version 10 could optimize multiple calls of the __builtin_darn intrinsic into a single call, thus reducing the entropy of the random number generator. This occurred because a volatile operation was not specified. For example, within a single execution of a program, the output of every __builtin_darn() call may be the same.
2019-05-22
CVE-2018-12886
CWE-119
stack_protect_prologue in cfgexpand.c and stack_protect_epilogue in function.c in GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) 4.1 through 8 (under certain circumstances) generate instruction sequences when targeting ARM targets that spill the address of the stack protector guard, which allows an attacker to bypass the protection of -fstack-protector, -fstack-protector-all, -fstack-protector-strong, and -fstack-protector-explicit against stack overflow by controlling what the stack canary is compared against.
2017-07-26
CVE-2017-11671
CWE-338
Under certain circumstances, the ix86_expand_builtin function in i386.c in GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) version 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5 before 5.5, and 6 before 6.4 will generate instruction sequences that clobber the status flag of the RDRAND and RDSEED intrinsics before it can be read, potentially causing failures of these instructions to go unreported. This could potentially lead to less randomness in random number generation.
2015-11-17
CVE-2015-5276
CWE-200
The std::random_device class in libstdc++ in the GNU Compiler Collection (aka GCC) before 4.9.4 does not properly handle short reads from blocking sources, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to predict the random values via unspecified vectors.
2008-04-06
CVE-2008-1685
CWE-189
** DISPUTED ** gcc 4.2.0 through 4.3.0 in GNU Compiler Collection, when casts are not used, considers the sum of a pointer and an int to be greater than or equal to the pointer, which might lead to removal of length testing code that was intended as a protection mechanism against integer overflow and buffer overflow attacks, and provide no diagnostic message about this removal. NOTE: the vendor has determined that this compiler behavior is correct according to section 6.5.6 of the C99 standard (aka ISO/IEC 9899:1999).
2008-03-17
CVE-2008-1367
CWE-399
gcc 4.3.x does not generate a cld instruction while compiling functions used for string manipulation such as memcpy and memmove on x86 and i386, which can prevent the direction flag (DF) from being reset in violation of ABI conventions and cause data to be copied in the wrong direction during signal handling in the Linux kernel, which might allow context-dependent attackers to trigger memory corruption. NOTE: this issue was originally reported for CPU consumption in SBCL.
2006-04-20
CVE-2006-1902
CWE-119
fold_binary in fold-const.c in GNU Compiler Collection (gcc) 4.1 improperly handles pointer overflow when folding a certain expr comparison to a corresponding offset comparison in cases other than EQ_EXPR and NE_EXPR, which might introduce buffer overflow vulnerabilities into applications that could be exploited by context-dependent attackers.NOTE: the vendor states that the essence of the issue is "not correctly interpreting an offset to a pointer as a signed value."
Copyright
2024
, cxsecurity.com
Back to Top