<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 16:41:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2024-6104 — go-retryablehttp can leak basic auth credentials to log files</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-6104</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; HashiCorp Shared library&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; HashiCorp Shared library&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-6104</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r — in-toto-golang and in-toto-python have inconsistent negation behavior</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Go: github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Impact
_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Patches
_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Go: github.com/in-toto/in-toto-golang&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Impact
_What kind of vulnerability is it? Who is impacted?_&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Patches
_Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?_&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-pmwq-pjrm-6p5r</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
