peercoin through 0.6.4 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

neblio through 1.5.1 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

reddcoin through 2.1.0.5 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

stratisX through 2.0.0.5 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

Divi through 4.0.5 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

alqo through 4.1 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

Diamond through 3.0.1.2 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

lux through 5.2.2 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

Phore through 1.3.3.1 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

PIVX through 3.1.03 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.

navcoin through 4.3.0 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks. The attack requires no stake and can fill the victim's disk and RAM.

HTMLCOIN through 2.12 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks. The attack requires no stake and can fill the victim's disk and RAM.

particl through 0.17 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks. The attack requires no stake and can fill the victim's disk and RAM.

emercoin through 0.7 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks. The attack requires no stake and can fill the victim's disk and RAM.

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in Xinha, as included in the Serendipity package before 1.5.5, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code in plugins/ExtendedFileManager/manager.php and plugins/ImageManager/manager.php.

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in Xinha, as included in the Serendipity package before 1.5.5, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code in the image manager.

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in Xinha, as included in the Serendipity package before 1.5.5, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via plugins/ExtendedFileManager/backend.php.

A vulnerability in the HTTP traffic filtering component of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense Software, Cisco FirePOWER Services Software for ASA, and Cisco Firepower Management Center Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass filtering protections. The vulnerability is due to improper handling of HTTP requests, including those communicated over a secure HTTPS connection, that contain maliciously crafted headers. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious requests to an affected device. An exploit could allow the attacker to bypass filtering and deliver malicious requests to protected systems, allowing attackers to deliver malicious content that would otherwise be blocked.

A vulnerability in the normalization functionality of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense Software, Cisco FirePOWER Services Software for ASA, and Cisco Firepower Management Center Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass filtering protections. The vulnerability is due to insufficient normalization of a text-based payload. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending traffic that contains specifically obfuscated payloads through an affected device. An exploit could allow the attacker to bypass filtering and deliver malicious payloads to protected systems that would otherwise be blocked.

A vulnerability in the protocol detection component of Cisco Firepower Threat Defense Software, Cisco FirePOWER Services Software for ASA, and Cisco Firepower Management Center Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass filtering protections. The vulnerability is due to improper detection of the initial use of a protocol on a nonstandard port. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending traffic on a nonstandard port for the protocol in use through an affected device. An exploit could allow the attacker to bypass filtering and deliver malicious requests to protected systems that would otherwise be blocked. Once the initial protocol flow on the nonstandard port is detected, future flows on the nonstandard port will be successfully detected and handled as configured by the applied policy.