<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T05:43:02.997387+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-6104</id>
    <title>CVE-2024-6104 — go-retryablehttp can leak basic auth credentials to log files</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T05:43:03.050089+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> HashiCorp Shared library</p>
<p>go-retryablehttp prior to 0.7.7 did not sanitize urls when writing them to its log file. This could lead to go-retryablehttp writing sensitive HTTP basic auth credentials to its log file. This vulnerability, CVE-2024-6104, was fixed in go-retryablehttp 0.7.7.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-6104"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r</id>
    <title>GHSA-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r — in-toto-golang and in-toto-python have inconsistent negation behavior</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T05:43:03.050210+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Go: github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang</p>
<p>### Impact
_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_</p>
<p>in-toto-golang and in-toto-python both support glob patterns in artifact rules to indicate the artifacts that a rule applies to. Both support negations in character classes to indicate what should *not* be matched, but they used different operators to indicate the negation. in-toto-python uses `!` while in-toto-golang used `^`. A layout authored with the expectations of one implementation can therefore exhibit different behavior in the other implementation.</p>
<p>This impacts users in a specific set of circumstances where two different implementations are used to verify the same layout + attestation bundle at different stages of the same pipeline. As a rule of thumb, we advise using a single implementation across all aspects of a pipeline, from layout creation to pipeline execution and verification to prevent this class of bugs.</p>
<p>### Patches
_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_</p>
<p>in-toto-golang has been updated to use `!` instead of `^` to indicate negation. See https://github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang/pull/462. This is part of v0.11.0.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
