The VRRP parser in tcpdump before 4.9.3 has a buffer over-read in print-vrrp.c:vrrp_print() for VRRP version 2, a different vulnerability than CVE-2019-15167.

The ICMP parser in tcpdump before 4.9.3 has a buffer over-read in print-icmp.c:icmp_print().

The LDP parser in tcpdump before 4.9.3 has a buffer over-read in print-ldp.c:ldp_tlv_print().

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a flood of empty frames, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of frames with an empty payload and without the end-of-stream flag. These frames can be DATA, HEADERS, CONTINUATION and/or PUSH_PROMISE. The peer spends time processing each frame disproportionate to attack bandwidth. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to unconstrained interal data buffering, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens the HTTP/2 window so the peer can send without constraint; however, they leave the TCP window closed so the peer cannot actually write (many of) the bytes on the wire. The attacker then sends a stream of requests for a large response object. Depending on how the servers queue the responses, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a header leak, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of headers with a 0-length header name and 0-length header value, optionally Huffman encoded into 1-byte or greater headers. Some implementations allocate memory for these headers and keep the allocation alive until the session dies. This can consume excess memory.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a settings flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends a stream of SETTINGS frames to the peer. Since the RFC requires that the peer reply with one acknowledgement per SETTINGS frame, an empty SETTINGS frame is almost equivalent in behavior to a ping. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to a reset flood, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker opens a number of streams and sends an invalid request over each stream that should solicit a stream of RST_STREAM frames from the peer. Depending on how the peer queues the RST_STREAM frames, this can consume excess memory, CPU, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to ping floods, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker sends continual pings to an HTTP/2 peer, causing the peer to build an internal queue of responses. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both.

When PHP EXIF extension is parsing EXIF information from an image, e.g. via exif_read_data() function, in PHP versions 7.1.x below 7.1.31, 7.2.x below 7.2.21 and 7.3.x below 7.3.8 it is possible to supply it with data what will cause it to read past the allocated buffer. This may lead to information disclosure or crash.

When PHP EXIF extension is parsing EXIF information from an image, e.g. via exif_read_data() function, in PHP versions 7.1.x below 7.1.31, 7.2.x below 7.2.21 and 7.3.x below 7.3.8 it is possible to supply it with data what will cause it to read past the allocated buffer. This may lead to information disclosure or crash.

An issue was discovered in OpenLDAP 2.x before 2.4.48. When using SASL authentication and session encryption, and relying on the SASL security layers in slapd access controls, it is possible to obtain access that would otherwise be denied via a simple bind for any identity covered in those ACLs. After the first SASL bind is completed, the sasl_ssf value is retained for all new non-SASL connections. Depending on the ACL configuration, this can affect different types of operations (searches, modifications, etc.). In other words, a successful authorization step completed by one user affects the authorization requirement for a different user.

An issue was discovered in the server in OpenLDAP before 2.4.48. When the server administrator delegates rootDN (database admin) privileges for certain databases but wants to maintain isolation (e.g., for multi-tenant deployments), slapd does not properly stop a rootDN from requesting authorization as an identity from another database during a SASL bind or with a proxyAuthz (RFC 4370) control. (It is not a common configuration to deploy a system where the server administrator and a DB administrator enjoy different levels of trust.)