| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. |
| A SQL injection vulnerability existed in Kiteworks Secure Data Forms, where a value derived from the authenticated user's stored account data was incorporated into a database query without proper sanitization. An authenticated user could potentially influence that value to inject SQL. Exploitation requires an authenticated session and applies only to deployments where a specific optional feature is in use. |
| An authenticated administrator of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could submit a crafted serialized object to a cluster management interface that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution in the context of the gateway service account. Exploitation requires an administrator account holding a specific queue-management privilege. |
| Improper authentication in a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrative service. An administrative service in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not consistently enforce administrator authentication, so the required password check could be bypassed. An attacker who referenced a valid administrator account could potentially create, modify, or delete internal users and managed domains and change their security-feature configuration without authenticating; deleting a managed domain also removes its user accounts and could lock administrators out of the gateway. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary commands to be executed on the affected gateway. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Unsafe Reflection and does not sufficiently restrict the code that the mail-processing pipeline could load from an imported rule configuration. An authenticated administrator with mail-rule configuration privileges could cause the gateway to load and execute code beyond the approved set of mail-processing components, potentially in the context of the mail-gateway service account. |
| Kiteworks Secure Data Forms before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to make the server issue arbitrary outbound network requests and read back the responses. This could potentially be used to reach internal-only services or other network-restricted resources. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to a path traversal weakness in an administrative import function allowed an authenticated administrator to write files to arbitrary locations on the server. This could potentially be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the underlying system. |
| Two Kiteworks Core cluster-management operations did not validate file paths supplied to them, so an attacker holding root on one node of a cluster could write files as root onto another node and cause them to be executed there. Exploitation requires backend root access on a cluster node and a pending software patch present on the target node. |
| Kiteworks Core before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting. A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) weakness in Kiteworks Core could allow an authenticated user to submit content that, when later viewed by another user, executes arbitrary JavaScript in that user's authenticated session. This could be used to perform actions on the victim's behalf and may have permitted account takeover, including of higher-privileged users. Exploitation requires the victim to view the attacker-supplied content. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently restrict which account a certificate could be assigned to. This could allow an attacker to associate a certificate with another user's account, affecting the confidentiality and integrity of that account's encrypted mail and, where certificate-based login is enabled, potentially permitting unauthorized access to the account. |
| A stored cross-site scripting (XSS) weakness in Kiteworks Core could allow an unauthenticated attacker to store crafted content that later executes arbitrary JavaScript in the authenticated session of an administrator who views the affected page. This could have permitted the attacker to gain full administrative control, including the creation of a new administrative account. |
| A resource exhaustion vulnerability in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly trigger a comparatively expensive server-side operation, causing a partial denial of service. |
| A system notification template on the Kiteworks appliance was rendered by a template engine that evaluated expressions contained in the stored template body. An authenticated System Administrator could potentially store a crafted template that executed operating-system commands on the appliance when the notification was next sent. |
| An authorization check in the large file exchange feature of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not correctly establish that the requesting user was a party to the package being requested. An authenticated user of that optional feature could read the subject, message body, and attachments of packages they neither sent nor received. |
