Improper syscall input validation in AMD TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) may allow an attacker with physical access and control of a Uapp that runs under the bootloader to reveal the contents of the ASP (AMD Secure Processor) bootloader accessible memory to a serial port, resulting in a potential loss of integrity.

Insufficient validation of inputs in SVC_MAP_USER_STACK in the ASP (AMD Secure Processor) bootloader may allow an attacker with a malicious Uapp or ABL to send malformed or invalid syscall to the bootloader resulting in a potential denial of service and loss of integrity.

Failure to unmap certain SysHub mappings in error paths of the ASP (AMD Secure Processor) bootloader may allow an attacker with a malicious bootloader to exhaust the SysHub resources resulting in a potential denial of service.

Insufficient input validation in the ASP (AMD Secure Processor) bootloader may allow an attacker with a compromised Uapp or ABL to coerce the bootloader into exposing sensitive information to the SMU (System Management Unit) resulting in a potential loss of confidentiality and integrity.

An attacker with a compromised ASP could possibly send malformed commands to an ASP on another CPU, resulting in an out of bounds write, potentially leading to a loss a loss of integrity.

Improper access control settings in ASP Bootloader may allow an attacker to corrupt the return address causing a stack-based buffer overrun potentially leading to arbitrary code execution.

Insufficient syscall input validation in the ASP Bootloader may allow a privileged attacker to execute arbitrary DMA copies, which can lead to code execution.

Improper validation of DRAM addresses in SMU may allow an attacker to overwrite sensitive memory locations within the ASP potentially resulting in a denial of service.

Failure to validate the length fields of the ASP (AMD Secure Processor) sensor fusion hub headers may allow an attacker with a malicious Uapp or ABL to map the ASP sensor fusion hub region and overwrite data structures leading to a potential loss of confidentiality and integrity.

Insufficient bounds checking in ASP (AMD Secure Processor) may allow for an out of bounds read in SMI (System Management Interface) mailbox checksum calculation triggering a data abort, resulting in a potential denial of service.

A compromised or malicious ABL or UApp could send a SHA256 system call to the bootloader, which may result in exposure of ASP memory to userspace, potentially leading to information disclosure.

A TOCTOU in ASP bootloader may allow an attacker to tamper with the SPI ROM following data read to memory potentially resulting in S3 data corruption and information disclosure.

Insufficient bounds checking in ASP may allow an attacker to issue a system call from a compromised ABL which may cause arbitrary memory values to be initialized to zero, potentially leading to a loss of integrity.

IBM Aspera Cargo 4.2.5 and IBM Aspera Connect 4.2.5 are vulnerable to a buffer overflow, caused by improper bounds checking. An attacker could overflow a buffer and execute arbitrary code on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 248616.

IBM Aspera Cargo 4.2.5 and IBM Aspera Connect 4.2.5 are vulnerable to a buffer overflow, caused by improper bounds checking. An attacker could overflow a buffer and execute arbitrary code on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 248616.

IBM Aspera Faspex 4.4.2 is vulnerable to an XML external entity injection (XXE) attack when processing XML data. A remote authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands. IBM X-Force ID: 249845.

IBM Aspera Faspex 4.4.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive credential information using specially crafted XML input. IBM X-Force ID: 249654.

IBM Aspera Faspex 4.4.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive credential information for an external user, using a specially crafted SQL query. IBM X-Force ID: 249613.

x86/HVM pinned cache attributes mis-handling T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] To allow cachability control for HVM guests with passed through devices, an interface exists to explicitly override defaults which would otherwise be put in place. While not exposed to the affected guests themselves, the interface specifically exists for domains controlling such guests. This interface may therefore be used by not fully privileged entities, e.g. qemu running deprivileged in Dom0 or qemu running in a so called stub-domain. With this exposure it is an issue that - the number of the such controlled regions was unbounded (CVE-2022-42333), - installation and removal of such regions was not properly serialized (CVE-2022-42334).

x86/HVM pinned cache attributes mis-handling T[his CNA information record relates to multiple CVEs; the text explains which aspects/vulnerabilities correspond to which CVE.] To allow cachability control for HVM guests with passed through devices, an interface exists to explicitly override defaults which would otherwise be put in place. While not exposed to the affected guests themselves, the interface specifically exists for domains controlling such guests. This interface may therefore be used by not fully privileged entities, e.g. qemu running deprivileged in Dom0 or qemu running in a so called stub-domain. With this exposure it is an issue that - the number of the such controlled regions was unbounded (CVE-2022-42333), - installation and removal of such regions was not properly serialized (CVE-2022-42334).