The mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for Target Coin (TGT), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, has no period constraint, which allows the owner to increase the total supply of the digital assets arbitrarily so as to make profits, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for Internet Node Token (INT), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, has no period constraint, which allows the owner to increase the total supply of the digital assets arbitrarily so as to make profits, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for Substratum (SUB), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, has no period constraint, which allows the owner to increase the total supply of the digital assets arbitrarily so as to make profits, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The mintToken function of a smart contract implementation for PolyAI (AI), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, has no period constraint, which allows the owner to increase the total supply of the digital assets arbitrarily so as to make profits, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The sell function of a smart contract implementation for SEC, a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows a potential trap that could be used to cause financial damage to the seller, because of overflow of the multiplication of its argument amount and a manipulable variable sellPrice, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The sell function of a smart contract implementation for Target Coin (TGT), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows a potential trap that could be used to cause financial damage to the seller, because of overflow of the multiplication of its argument amount and a manipulable variable sellPrice, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The sell function of a smart contract implementation for Substratum (SUB), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows a potential trap that could be used to cause financial damage to the seller, because of overflow of the multiplication of its argument amount and a manipulable variable sellPrice, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The sell function of a smart contract implementation for Internet Node Token (INT), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows a potential trap that could be used to cause financial damage to the seller, because of overflow of the multiplication of its argument amount and a manipulable variable sellPrice, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The sell function of a smart contract implementation for SwftCoin (SWFTC), a tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows a potential trap that could be used to cause financial damage to the seller, because of overflow of the multiplication of its argument amount and a manipulable variable sellPrice, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The buy function of a smart contract implementation for Gold Reward (GRX), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows a potential trap that could be used to cause financial damage to the buyer because of overflow of the multiplication of its argument amount and a manipulable variable buyPrice, aka the "tradeTrap" issue.

The approveAndCallcode function of a smart contract implementation for Block 18 (18T), an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to steal assets (e.g., transfer the contract's balances into their account) because the callcode (i.e., _spender.call(_extraData)) is not verified, aka the "evilReflex" issue. NOTE: a PeckShield disclosure states "some researchers have independently discussed the mechanism of such vulnerability."

The approveAndCallcode function of a smart contract implementation for Globalvillage ecosystem (GVE), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to steal assets (e.g., transfer the contract's balances into their account) because the callcode (i.e., _spender.call(_extraData)) is not verified, aka the "evilReflex" issue. NOTE: a PeckShield disclosure states "some researchers have independently discussed the mechanism of such vulnerability."

The API service on Google Home and Chromecast devices before mid-July 2018 does not prevent DNS rebinding attacks from reading the scan_results JSON data, which allows remote attackers to determine the physical location of most web browsers by leveraging the presence of one of these devices on its local network, extracting the scan_results bssid fields, and sending these fields in a geolocation/v1/geolocate Google Maps Geolocation API request.

An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 4.17.2. The filter parsing in kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c could be called with no filter, which is an N=0 case when it expected at least one line to have been read, thus making the N-1 index invalid. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (slab out-of-bounds write) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted perf_event_open and mmap system calls.

DIGISOL DG-BR4000NG devices have a Buffer Overflow via a long Authorization HTTP header.

DIGISOL DG-BR4000NG devices have XSS via the SSID (it is validated only on the client side).

GIMP through 2.10.2 makes g_get_tmp_dir calls to establish temporary filenames, which may result in a filename that already exists, as demonstrated by the gimp_write_and_read_file function in app/tests/test-xcf.c. This might be leveraged by attackers to overwrite files or read file content that was intended to be private.

finish_stab in stabs.c in GNU Binutils 2.30 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (heap-based buffer overflow) or possibly have unspecified other impact, as demonstrated by an out-of-bounds write of 8 bytes. This can occur during execution of objdump.

demangle_template in cplus-dem.c in GNU libiberty, as distributed in GNU Binutils 2.30, allows attackers to trigger excessive memory consumption (aka OOM) during the "Create an array for saving the template argument values" XNEWVEC call. This can occur during execution of objdump.

A NULL pointer dereference (aka SEGV on unknown address 0x000000000000) was discovered in work_stuff_copy_to_from in cplus-dem.c in GNU libiberty, as distributed in GNU Binutils 2.30. This can occur during execution of objdump.