| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A remote code execution vulnerability was found in libaom, the reference AV1 codec implementation. Insufficient bounds validation in the AV1 encoder's SVC (Scalable Video Coding) layer ID control allows an attacker to supply crafted video frame pixels that overlap with internal encoder layer context structures. In fork-based video processing services, an attacker can use this to hijack the cyclic refresh map pointer, brute-force the process base address via a crash oracle, and redirect control flow to achieve arbitrary command execution. Exploitation requires the target service to use libaom with SVC encoding enabled and accept attacker-supplied video frames. |
| A heap-buffer-overflow read vulnerability was found in libaom, the reference AV1 codec implementation. A missing bounds check in the SVC (Scalable Video Coding) layer ID control function allows setting a spatial_layer_id exceeding the configured number of layers. This causes an out-of-bounds heap read of approximately 40,728 bytes when computing a layer context array index. An attacker who can influence SVC encoder parameters in a network-facing service could exploit this for information disclosure (heap content leak) or denial of service (segmentation fault from hitting unmapped memory). |
| An arbitrary address write vulnerability was found in libaom, the reference AV1 codec implementation. A missing bounds check in the SVC (Scalable Video Coding) layer ID control function allows an attacker to inject an arbitrary pointer into the cyclic refresh map field via crafted image pixel values. The encoder then writes approximately 1,200 bytes at the attacker-controlled address. This is fully deterministic and does not require a separate information leak. An attacker who can supply frames to a network-facing libaom encoder with SVC enabled could exploit this for denial of service or potential code execution. |
| A heap buffer overflow vulnerability was found in libaom, the reference AV1 codec implementation. A flaw in the AV1 encoder's Look-Ahead Processing (LAP) mode causes the first-pass stats ring buffer wrap-around guard to be bypassed when g_lag_in_frames is set to 1 or higher. This results in a 232-byte out-of-bounds write on every encoded frame after the second, corrupting adjacent heap objects. An attacker who can influence encoder configuration in a transcoding service or WebRTC session could exploit this to cause a denial of service (process crash) or potentially achieve code execution. |
| LaunchConfigurationBaseSerializer.scm_branch has no
validate_scm_branch() leading-dash check, unlike
Project/JobTemplate/JobLaunch serializers. Schedule and
WFJT Node accept --upload-pack=/bin/id as scm_branch.
Currently blocked at runtime by jobs.py:1502 ValueError
check (defense-in-depth), but the API validation gap
means sole reliance on a task-layer guard. Refactoring
that guard away would promote this to RCE. |
| RunAdHocCommand.build_args() appends limit as bare
positional (args.append(limit)) instead of using
args.extend(['-l', limit]) like RunJob. A limit beginning
with - is parsed as an ansible CLI option. Currently
limited to short-circuit flags (--version, --help) since
injected element displaces required pattern positional.
Would escalate if ansible-core ever defaults pattern. |
| Notification template Jinja AST whitelist only inspects
static Getattr nodes. Dynamic subscripts (job['job'+'_env'])
and {% if job.id > 100 %} conditional gating bypass both
the AST check and the test-render (stub has small job.id).
At runtime, the gated branch executes and exceptions write
full tracebacks into notification body, which is POSTed
to attacker-controlled webhook URL. Leaks install paths,
Python version, source line numbers. |
| A server-side request forgery flaw was found in the Ansible Automation Platform
automation-controller email notification backend. The email backend passes the user-supplied SMTP
host and port from a notification template directly to the SMTP client without validating that
the target is not an internal, loopback, link-local, or reserved address. An authenticated user
with organization notification-admin permission can create or modify an email notification
template pointing at an arbitrary internal address, trigger a test, and have the controller task
process open a raw TCP connection to that address. The resulting connection error is reflected
back through the notification record, providing a three-state internal port-scan oracle (open,
closed, filtered) over the control-plane's cluster network, including the in-cluster Kubernetes
API. When a shared organization template holds a stored SMTP password, redirecting the host can
also cause that credential to be transmitted to an attacker-controlled server. |
| A flaw was found in the automation-controller notification
subsystem. Although NotificationTemplate.notification_
configuration is protected from API filtering, its recipient
value is copied in clear text into the unprotected
Notification.recipients field on every send. Because the
credential-types endpoint is listable by any authenticated
user and the API filter backend traverses object relations
without per-hop authorization, a user with no privileges can
use a relational filter as a boolean count-oracle to recover,
character by character and across organizations, the secret
recipient values of other tenants' notifications — including
PagerDuty service keys and Slack/Mattermost/RocketChat/Webhook
bearer-token URLs. This flaw affects confidentiality. |
| A flaw was found in Ansible Automation Platform's automation-controller (AWX).
The Bulk Job Launch API (POST /api/v2/bulk/job_launch/) authorizes the
requested instance_groups with only a read-level permission check, whereas the
standard single-job launch path requires use-level permission on the same
field. A principal that holds read (but not use) permission on an instance
group -- for example the built-in read-only System Auditor role -- together
with execute permission on a job template can launch bulk jobs onto instance
groups they are not authorized to use, bypassing execution-placement
isolation. |
| StringListPathField.to_internal_value() calls
os.path.exists() on unbounded user-supplied paths.
200 vs 400 response reveals existence of arbitrary
absolute paths on the controller-web pod. Tenant
superuser can confirm /etc/tower/SECRET_KEY, k8s
service-account token, receptor sockets, ConfigMap
mount points. Mainly impactful on managed AAP
(ansiblecloud.com) where tenant admin != host admin. |
| /api/v2/config/ is protected only by IsAuthenticated.
license_info (account_number, subscription_id, pool_id,
sku, support_level, instance counts) returned to any
authenticated user. The superuser/auditor gate only covers
project_base_dir/project_local_paths/custom_virtualenvs,
not license_info. Enables social engineering against
Red Hat support and estate sizing reconnaissance. |
| JobJobEventsChildrenSummary view has no model/parent_model.
ModelAccessPermission.check_get_permissions() falls through
(returns True) for any authenticated user. The view uses
raw get_object_or_404(Job, pk) without DRF object-level
permission check. Zero-privilege user reads event tree
structure, event_processing_finished status, and enumerates
Job IDs platform-wide via 200/404 oracle. Sibling endpoint
/jobs/{id}/job_events/ correctly returns 403. |
| URLModificationMiddleware resolves named-URL lookups
against unfiltered Model.objects before RBAC. The 403→404
shim only rewrites 403 responses, leaving the pk=0 miss
path with a different 404 detail string. Differential
"Not found." vs "No <Model> matches..." reveals whether
a named resource (org, credential, inventory, host) exists
anywhere on the platform. Enables cross-tenant internal
hostname enumeration. |
| A container privilege escalation flaw was found in certain Ansible Automation Platform images. This issue arises from the /etc/passwd file being created with group-writable permissions during the build process. In certain conditions, an attacker who can execute commands within an affected container, even as a non-root user, can leverage their membership in the root group to modify the /etc/passwd file. This vulnerability allows an attacker to add a new user with any arbitrary UID, including UID 0, gaining full root privileges within the container. |
| A flaw was found in the AAP Controller's HashiCorp Vault credential plugin. The kubernetes_auth() function in awx_plugins/credentials/hashivault.py reads the controller pod's Kubernetes service account token and sends it to an attacker-controlled URL when a HashiCorp Vault Secret Lookup credential with kubernetes_role authentication is tested. An authenticated attacker with credential-creation privileges can exfiltrate the service account token, gaining Kubernetes API access to the control plane namespaces with full pod CRUD and secret read permissions, including database credentials and the Django SECRET_KEY. |
| A flaw was found in the Ansible Automation Platform automation-controller. When a
WorkflowJobTemplate is copied, the deep-copy permission sanitizer validates only the inventory,
unified_job_template, and credentials of each cloned node and fails to check the instance_groups
(and execution_environment and labels) that were preserved from the original. A user with
organization workflow-admin permission but no role on the referenced instance groups can copy a
workflow, become its administrator, and launch jobs pinned to instance groups they are not
authorized to use — including the control-plane instance group — bypassing the InstanceGroup
use_role boundary and causing attacker-influenced automation to run in the control-plane
execution context. |
| A flaw was found in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform's automation-
controller. The setting that formats the log message emitted for API 4XX errors
is an administrator-controlled Python format-string template that is rendered
with a live user object as an argument. Because Python string formatting permits
attribute and item traversal on its arguments, an administrator can craft a
template that walks from the user object into the application settings and reads
the Django secret key and the database password. The formatted message is written
to a logger that can be forwarded to an external log aggregator, whose destination
is also administrator-controlled, allowing the secrets to be sent off the host. An
authenticated administrator can thereby obtain the master encryption key used to
protect all stored credentials and the database service password, enabling offline
decryption of every stored credential, forgery of user sessions, and direct
access to the controller database. |
| A flaw was found in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform's automation-
controller. The HTML view of job, ad hoc command, project update, and inventory
update standard output escapes HTML metacharacters but does not remove ANSI
terminal escape sequences before conversion to HTML. An ANSI OSC 8 hyperlink
sequence in the output is expanded into an HTML anchor whose href is not scheme-
filtered or escaped, so a low-privileged user who can produce output -- or an
external party whose data a playbook echoes -- can embed a javascript: link that
is rendered into a text/html response with no Content-Security-Policy. When a
higher-privileged user views the output page and clicks the link, attacker-
controlled JavaScript executes in their authenticated session, allowing actions
as that user up to full platform takeover. |
| A flaw was found in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform's automation-
controller. The Project scm_url field is not validated against values that
begin with a dash and is stored and passed verbatim to the git SCM module.
Because the module runs git ls-remote with the URL as a positional argument and
without a "--" separator, a git project URL such as "--upload-pack=<command>:x"
is interpreted by git as the --upload-pack option and executed via a shell. A
user with permission to create or modify a project in a single organization can
thereby execute arbitrary commands on the control-plane task pod, with output
reflected through the project update stdout endpoint, leading to cross-tenant
compromise and in-cluster lateral movement |
