An issue was discovered in apng2gif 1.7. There is improper sanitization of user input causing huge memory allocations, resulting in a crash. This is related to the read_chunk function using the pChunk->size value (within the PNG file) to determine the amount of memory to allocate.

An issue was discovered in apng2gif 1.7. There is an integer overflow resulting in a heap-based buffer over-read, related to the load_apng function and the imagesize variable.

An XSS vulnerability in the MantisBT Source Integration Plugin (before 2.0.2) search result page allows an attacker to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript (if MantisBT's CSP settings permit it) by crafting any valid parameter.

An issue was discovered in by-email/by-email.php in the Invite Anyone plugin before 1.3.15 for WordPress. A user is able to change the subject and the body of the invitation mail that should be immutable, which facilitates a social engineering attack.

An issue was discovered in includes/component.php in the BuddyPress Docs plugin before 1.9.3 for WordPress. It is possible for authenticated users to edit documents of other users without proper permissions.

Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 10, 1511, and 1606 and Windows Server 2016 does not enforce cross-domain policies, allowing attackers to access information from one domain and inject it into another via a crafted application, aka, "Internet Explorer Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability."

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, and CVE-2017-0150.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, and CVE-2017-0151.

Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 through 11 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via a crafted web site, aka "Internet Explorer Memory Corruption Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0018 and CVE-2017-0037.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, and CVE-2017-0146.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory via a crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability."

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, and CVE-2017-0148.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0145, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.

The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

Microsoft Edge allows remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy for HTML elements in other browser windows, aka "Microsoft Edge Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0066 and CVE-2017-0135.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0136, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.

A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way affected Microsoft scripting engines render when handling objects in memory in Microsoft browsers. These vulnerabilities could corrupt memory in such a way that an attacker could execute arbitrary code in the context of the current user. An attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. If the current user is logged on with administrative user rights, an attacker who successfully exploited the vulnerability could take control of an affected system. An attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0010, CVE-2017-0015, CVE-2017-0032, CVE-2017-0035, CVE-2017-0067, CVE-2017-0070, CVE-2017-0071, CVE-2017-0094, CVE-2017-0131, CVE-2017-0132, CVE-2017-0133, CVE-2017-0134, CVE-2017-0137, CVE-2017-0138, CVE-2017-0141, CVE-2017-0150, and CVE-2017-0151.