https://vulnerability.circl.lu Contains only the most 10 recent sightings. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Fri, 18 Sep 2026 11:03:36 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/85fd7ac6-8902-48eb-a290-477e3e87bb34/export {"uuid": "85fd7ac6-8902-48eb-a290-477e3e87bb34", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-22729", "type": "seen", "source": "https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/exploits/linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729.rb", "content": "{\"aliases\": [], \"arch\": \"mipsle\", \"author\": [\"h00die-gr3y \", \"Adhikara13\"], \"autofilter_ports\": [80, 8080, 443, 8000, 8888, 8880, 8008, 3000, 8443], \"autofilter_services\": [\"http\", \"https\"], \"check\": true, \"default_credential\": false, \"description\": \"Netis router MW5360 has a command injection vulnerability via the password parameter on the login page.\\n The vulnerability stems from improper handling of the \\\"password\\\" parameter within the router's web interface.\\n The router's login page authorization can be bypassed by simply deleting the authorization header,\\n leading to the vulnerability. All router firmware versions up to `V1.0.1.3442` are vulnerable.\\n Attackers can inject a command in the 'password' parameter, encoded in base64, to exploit the command injection\\n vulnerability. When exploited, this can lead to unauthorized command execution, potentially allowing the attacker\\n to take control of the router.\", \"disclosure_date\": \"2024-01-11\", \"fullname\": \"exploit/linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729\", \"is_install_path\": true, \"mod_time\": \"2026-04-22 13:20:20 +0000\", \"name\": \"Netis router MW5360 unauthenticated RCE.\", \"needs_cleanup\": true, \"notes\": {\"Reliability\": [\"repeatable-session\"], \"SideEffects\": [\"ioc-in-logs\", \"artifacts-on-disk\"], \"Stability\": [\"crash-safe\"]}, \"path\": \"/modules/exploits/linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729.rb\", \"platform\": \"Linux\", \"post_auth\": false, \"rank\": 600, \"ref_name\": \"linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729\", \"references\": [\"CVE-2024-22729\", \"URL-https://attackerkb.com/topics/MvCphsf4LN/cve-2024-22729\", \"URL-https://github.com/adhikara13/CVE/blob/main/netis_MW5360/blind%20command%20injection%20in%20password%20parameter%20in%20initial%20settings.md\"], \"rport\": 80, \"session_types\": false, \"targets\": [\"Linux Dropper\"], \"type\": \"exploit\"}", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-08T06:48:48.022920Z"} {"uuid": "85fd7ac6-8902-48eb-a290-477e3e87bb34", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-22729", "type": "seen", "source": "https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/exploits/linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729.rb", "content": "{\"aliases\": [], \"arch\": \"mipsle\", \"author\": [\"h00die-gr3y \", \"Adhikara13\"], \"autofilter_ports\": [80, 8080, 443, 8000, 8888, 8880, 8008, 3000, 8443], \"autofilter_services\": [\"http\", \"https\"], \"check\": true, \"default_credential\": false, \"description\": \"Netis router MW5360 has a command injection vulnerability via the password parameter on the login page.\\n The vulnerability stems from improper handling of the \\\"password\\\" parameter within the router's web interface.\\n The router's login page authorization can be bypassed by simply deleting the authorization header,\\n leading to the vulnerability. All router firmware versions up to `V1.0.1.3442` are vulnerable.\\n Attackers can inject a command in the 'password' parameter, encoded in base64, to exploit the command injection\\n vulnerability. When exploited, this can lead to unauthorized command execution, potentially allowing the attacker\\n to take control of the router.\", \"disclosure_date\": \"2024-01-11\", \"fullname\": \"exploit/linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729\", \"is_install_path\": true, \"mod_time\": \"2026-04-22 13:20:20 +0000\", \"name\": \"Netis router MW5360 unauthenticated RCE.\", \"needs_cleanup\": true, \"notes\": {\"Reliability\": [\"repeatable-session\"], \"SideEffects\": [\"ioc-in-logs\", \"artifacts-on-disk\"], \"Stability\": [\"crash-safe\"]}, \"path\": \"/modules/exploits/linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729.rb\", \"platform\": \"Linux\", \"post_auth\": false, \"rank\": 600, \"ref_name\": \"linux/http/netis_unauth_rce_cve_2024_22729\", \"references\": [\"CVE-2024-22729\", \"URL-https://attackerkb.com/topics/MvCphsf4LN/cve-2024-22729\", \"URL-https://github.com/adhikara13/CVE/blob/main/netis_MW5360/blind%20command%20injection%20in%20password%20parameter%20in%20initial%20settings.md\"], \"rport\": 80, \"session_types\": false, \"targets\": [\"Linux Dropper\"], \"type\": \"exploit\"}", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-08T06:48:48.022920Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/85fd7ac6-8902-48eb-a290-477e3e87bb34/export Tue, 08 Sep 2026 06:48:48 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/e45a3678-c478-44f9-b5d7-58d1485d3234/export {"uuid": "e45a3678-c478-44f9-b5d7-58d1485d3234", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "published-proof-of-concept", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-07T01:00:14.393521Z"} {"uuid": "e45a3678-c478-44f9-b5d7-58d1485d3234", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "published-proof-of-concept", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-07T01:00:14.393521Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/e45a3678-c478-44f9-b5d7-58d1485d3234/export Mon, 07 Sep 2026 01:00:14 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/74c6a081-17e8-4afb-89d1-19faeb148ad2/export {"uuid": "74c6a081-17e8-4afb-89d1-19faeb148ad2", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "published-proof-of-concept", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-06T13:00:05.261161Z"} {"uuid": "74c6a081-17e8-4afb-89d1-19faeb148ad2", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "published-proof-of-concept", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-06T13:00:05.261161Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/74c6a081-17e8-4afb-89d1-19faeb148ad2/export Sun, 06 Sep 2026 13:00:05 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/fecd98de-89a7-46b8-8e99-52acc891c559/export {"uuid": "fecd98de-89a7-46b8-8e99-52acc891c559", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-02T01:02:21.887739Z"} {"uuid": "fecd98de-89a7-46b8-8e99-52acc891c559", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-02T01:02:21.887739Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/fecd98de-89a7-46b8-8e99-52acc891c559/export Wed, 02 Sep 2026 01:02:21 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/11800560-914a-4ee3-ab57-c23109e183bb/export {"uuid": "11800560-914a-4ee3-ab57-c23109e183bb", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-01T20:01:59.478424Z"} {"uuid": "11800560-914a-4ee3-ab57-c23109e183bb", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2020-12272", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/hacking_Attack/38673", "content": "Bugs found with this tool Gmail.com DMARC bypass demo video, https://youtu.be/xuKZpT0rsd0 Outlook.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/IsWgAEbPaK0 Yahoo.com DMARC bypass video, https://youtu.be/DRepfStOruE Protonmail.com DMARC bypass video,\u00a0https://youtu.be/bh4_SoPniMA CVE-2020-12272, OpenDMARC bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/237/ CVE-2019-20790, OpenDMARC and pypolicyd-spf bypass bug report, https://sourceforge.net/p/opendmarc/tickets/235/ Mail.ru DMARC bypass bug report on HackerOne, https://hackerone.com/reports/731878 Welcome to send a pull request to file your bug report here. Q&A How do I know if the email has bypassed DMARC authentication successfully? You can check it in the Authentication-results header in the raw message headers. If the header shows dmarc=pass, it means the email has passed the DMARC authentication. \u00a0You can check some demos video here (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL--A-gWJV1dJ19SyhkzklMC3C8ra1kK5-). Why do emails fail to send? There are several possible reasons if you fail to send an email: 1) your ISP blocks outgoing emails to port 25 to prevent spam. In this case, you need to ask for permission from the ISP; 2) the IP address is in the spam list of the target email services. In many cases, you resolve the problem here, https://www.spamhaus.org/lookup/ ; \u00a03) some email services check if there is a PTR record for the sending IP, you may also need to set the PTR record to bypass this check; 4) the email cannot pass the format validation of the target email service, you may want to try a different test case. Why the email goes to the spam folder? Any way to avoid this? Currently, espoofer focuses on bypassing SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication and doesn't aim for spam filter bypass. But you could try to use a reputable sending IP address, domain, and benign message content to bypass the spam filter. Why I send an email successfully but the email didn't show up\u00a0in either inbox or spam folder? In our prior experiences, some email services filter suspicious emails silently. When testing server_a5/a6, why I cannot set specical characters like \"(\" in the domain? You will need to set up your own authority DNS server, rather than use third-party DNS hosting services, as some DNS hosting services have restrictions on setting specical characters. See issue (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer/issues/2#issuecomment-686918954). Credits Welcome to add more test cases. \n\nDownload Espoofer (https://github.com/chenjj/espoofer)\n\n___________________________ \n@hacking_Attack\n@Hacking_Video", "creation_timestamp": "2026-09-01T20:01:59.478424Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/11800560-914a-4ee3-ab57-c23109e183bb/export Tue, 01 Sep 2026 20:01:59 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/833e3461-48d9-4cd9-8683-b5df916234b3/export {"uuid": "833e3461-48d9-4cd9-8683-b5df916234b3", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2022-22721", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/EchelonEyes/209", "content": "QNAP \u0440\u0435\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0443\u0435\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u044c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u0438\u0432\u043a\u0443 NAS \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0439 Apache HTTP\n\n\u041f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u0441\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0445 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c \u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 QNAP \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0432\u0443\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0431\u044b\u043b\u0438 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u044b \u0432 HTTP-\u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0435 Apache \u0432 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u043b\u043e\u043c \u043c\u0435\u0441\u044f\u0446\u0435. \u041f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u044c \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0438\u043c \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0435\u043d\u044b, \u0435\u0449\u0435 \u0443\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u044f\u0435\u0442\u0441\u044f. \n\n\u0423\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 CVE-2022-22721 \u0438 CVE-2022-23943 \u0438\u043c\u0435\u044e\u0442 \u0440\u0435\u0439\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 9,8 \u0432 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0435 \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0438 CVSS \u0438 \u0432\u043b\u0438\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043d\u0430 Apache HTTP Server \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0438\u0438 2.4.52 \u0438 \u0431\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0435 \u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0435. CVE-2022-22721 \u0441\u0432\u044f\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0435\u043c\u043e\u0439 buffer overflow \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u043c LimitXMLRequestBody, \u0430 CVE-2022-23943 \u2013 \u0441 out-of-bounds write.\n\n\u0412\u0435\u043d\u0434\u043e\u0440 \u0432\u044b\u043f\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043b \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u0435 \u043e\u0448\u0438\u0431\u043a\u0438.\n\n\u0420\u0430\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0448 \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043c-\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b \u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0438\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445 \u0432 Apache - Apache APISIX \u0438 Log4Shell \u0432 Apache Log4j. \n\n\u0418\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a: https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-22-11 \n\n#\u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c #QNAP", "creation_timestamp": "2026-07-18T00:00:36.582631Z"} {"uuid": "833e3461-48d9-4cd9-8683-b5df916234b3", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2022-22721", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/EchelonEyes/209", "content": "QNAP \u0440\u0435\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0443\u0435\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u044c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u0438\u0432\u043a\u0443 NAS \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0439 Apache HTTP\n\n\u041f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u0441\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0445 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c \u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 QNAP \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0432\u0443\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0431\u044b\u043b\u0438 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u044b \u0432 HTTP-\u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0435 Apache \u0432 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u043b\u043e\u043c \u043c\u0435\u0441\u044f\u0446\u0435. \u041f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u044c \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0438\u043c \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0435\u043d\u044b, \u0435\u0449\u0435 \u0443\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u044f\u0435\u0442\u0441\u044f. \n\n\u0423\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 CVE-2022-22721 \u0438 CVE-2022-23943 \u0438\u043c\u0435\u044e\u0442 \u0440\u0435\u0439\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 9,8 \u0432 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0435 \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0438 CVSS \u0438 \u0432\u043b\u0438\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043d\u0430 Apache HTTP Server \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0438\u0438 2.4.52 \u0438 \u0431\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0435 \u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0435. CVE-2022-22721 \u0441\u0432\u044f\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0435\u043c\u043e\u0439 buffer overflow \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u043c LimitXMLRequestBody, \u0430 CVE-2022-23943 \u2013 \u0441 out-of-bounds write.\n\n\u0412\u0435\u043d\u0434\u043e\u0440 \u0432\u044b\u043f\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043b \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u0435 \u043e\u0448\u0438\u0431\u043a\u0438.\n\n\u0420\u0430\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0448 \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043c-\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b \u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0438\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445 \u0432 Apache - Apache APISIX \u0438 Log4Shell \u0432 Apache Log4j. \n\n\u0418\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a: https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-22-11 \n\n#\u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c #QNAP", "creation_timestamp": "2026-07-18T00:00:36.582631Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/833e3461-48d9-4cd9-8683-b5df916234b3/export Sat, 18 Jul 2026 00:00:36 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/00ae9e2a-8d5f-4a7e-a937-b9c0bb073519/export {"uuid": "00ae9e2a-8d5f-4a7e-a937-b9c0bb073519", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2022-22721", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/EchelonEyes/209", "content": "QNAP \u0440\u0435\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0443\u0435\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u044c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u0438\u0432\u043a\u0443 NAS \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0439 Apache HTTP\n\n\u041f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u0441\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0445 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c \u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 QNAP \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0432\u0443\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0431\u044b\u043b\u0438 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u044b \u0432 HTTP-\u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0435 Apache \u0432 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u043b\u043e\u043c \u043c\u0435\u0441\u044f\u0446\u0435. \u041f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u044c \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0438\u043c \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0435\u043d\u044b, \u0435\u0449\u0435 \u0443\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u044f\u0435\u0442\u0441\u044f. \n\n\u0423\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 CVE-2022-22721 \u0438 CVE-2022-23943 \u0438\u043c\u0435\u044e\u0442 \u0440\u0435\u0439\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 9,8 \u0432 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0435 \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0438 CVSS \u0438 \u0432\u043b\u0438\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043d\u0430 Apache HTTP Server \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0438\u0438 2.4.52 \u0438 \u0431\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0435 \u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0435. CVE-2022-22721 \u0441\u0432\u044f\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0435\u043c\u043e\u0439 buffer overflow \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u043c LimitXMLRequestBody, \u0430 CVE-2022-23943 \u2013 \u0441 out-of-bounds write.\n\n\u0412\u0435\u043d\u0434\u043e\u0440 \u0432\u044b\u043f\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043b \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u0435 \u043e\u0448\u0438\u0431\u043a\u0438.\n\n\u0420\u0430\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0448 \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043c-\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b \u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0438\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445 \u0432 Apache - Apache APISIX \u0438 Log4Shell \u0432 Apache Log4j. \n\n\u0418\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a: https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-22-11 \n\n#\u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c #QNAP", "creation_timestamp": "2026-07-17T05:00:06.105855Z"} {"uuid": "00ae9e2a-8d5f-4a7e-a937-b9c0bb073519", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2022-22721", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/EchelonEyes/209", "content": "QNAP \u0440\u0435\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0443\u0435\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0442\u044c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u0438\u0432\u043a\u0443 NAS \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0439 Apache HTTP\n\n\u041f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u0441\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0445 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c \u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 QNAP \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0432\u0443\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0431\u044b\u043b\u0438 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u043d\u044b \u0432 HTTP-\u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0435 Apache \u0432 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0448\u043b\u043e\u043c \u043c\u0435\u0441\u044f\u0446\u0435. \u041f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u044c \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0438\u043c \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0435\u043d\u044b, \u0435\u0449\u0435 \u0443\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u044f\u0435\u0442\u0441\u044f. \n\n\u0423\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 CVE-2022-22721 \u0438 CVE-2022-23943 \u0438\u043c\u0435\u044e\u0442 \u0440\u0435\u0439\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 9,8 \u0432 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0435 \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0438 CVSS \u0438 \u0432\u043b\u0438\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043d\u0430 Apache HTTP Server \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0438\u0438 2.4.52 \u0438 \u0431\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0435 \u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0435. CVE-2022-22721 \u0441\u0432\u044f\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0435\u043c\u043e\u0439 buffer overflow \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u043c LimitXMLRequestBody, \u0430 CVE-2022-23943 \u2013 \u0441 out-of-bounds write.\n\n\u0412\u0435\u043d\u0434\u043e\u0440 \u0432\u044b\u043f\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043b \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u044f\u044e\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u0435 \u043e\u0448\u0438\u0431\u043a\u0438.\n\n\u0420\u0430\u043d\u0435\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0448 \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043c-\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b \u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043b \u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0438\u0445 \u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044f\u0445 \u0432 Apache - Apache APISIX \u0438 Log4Shell \u0432 Apache Log4j. \n\n\u0418\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a: https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-22-11 \n\n#\u0443\u044f\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c #QNAP", "creation_timestamp": "2026-07-17T05:00:06.105855Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/00ae9e2a-8d5f-4a7e-a937-b9c0bb073519/export Fri, 17 Jul 2026 05:00:06 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/32bebefa-431e-4a0f-a9f2-64a47bc7ce8d/export {"uuid": "32bebefa-431e-4a0f-a9f2-64a47bc7ce8d", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2026-22729", "type": "seen", "source": "https://bsky.app/profile/cyberhub.blog/post/3mqjr47plzf2o", "content": "\ud83d\udccc CVE-2026-22729 - A JSONPath injection vulnerability in Spring AI's AbstractFilterExpressionConverter allows authenticated users to bypass metadata-based access control... https://www.cyberhub.blog/cves/CVE-2026-22729", "creation_timestamp": "2026-07-13T13:07:06.715572Z"} {"uuid": "32bebefa-431e-4a0f-a9f2-64a47bc7ce8d", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2026-22729", "type": "seen", "source": "https://bsky.app/profile/cyberhub.blog/post/3mqjr47plzf2o", "content": "\ud83d\udccc CVE-2026-22729 - A JSONPath injection vulnerability in Spring AI's AbstractFilterExpressionConverter allows authenticated users to bypass metadata-based access control... https://www.cyberhub.blog/cves/CVE-2026-22729", "creation_timestamp": "2026-07-13T13:07:06.715572Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/32bebefa-431e-4a0f-a9f2-64a47bc7ce8d/export Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:07:06 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/7bf6b5e4-03d3-46ae-9bc0-5700f4dcf089/export {"uuid": "7bf6b5e4-03d3-46ae-9bc0-5700f4dcf089", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "c8fb6bf1-f81f-4cb8-95b1-eadbb3b54ee8", "author": "af0120d0-3dac-4a6a-974b-a9f33d2a9846", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-22729", "type": "exploited", "source": "https://vulnerability.circl.lu/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog/0e6d5e65-744f-4ad8-bdd0-8c5250126896", "content": "", "creation_timestamp": "2026-06-30T12:29:18.738516Z"} {"uuid": "7bf6b5e4-03d3-46ae-9bc0-5700f4dcf089", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "c8fb6bf1-f81f-4cb8-95b1-eadbb3b54ee8", "author": "af0120d0-3dac-4a6a-974b-a9f33d2a9846", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-22729", "type": "exploited", "source": "https://vulnerability.circl.lu/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog/0e6d5e65-744f-4ad8-bdd0-8c5250126896", "content": "", "creation_timestamp": "2026-06-30T12:29:18.738516Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/7bf6b5e4-03d3-46ae-9bc0-5700f4dcf089/export Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:29:18 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/1478d98d-28d7-4227-b024-8d5f81c10f16/export {"uuid": "1478d98d-28d7-4227-b024-8d5f81c10f16", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "caeb2787-0d58-4236-9039-7c86c3e566f3", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-22729", "type": "exploited", "source": "https://vulnerability.circl.lu/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog/adbf6d40-dce4-42e0-a03b-1958764073b4", "content": "", "creation_timestamp": "2026-06-23T14:06:11.283150Z"} {"uuid": "1478d98d-28d7-4227-b024-8d5f81c10f16", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "caeb2787-0d58-4236-9039-7c86c3e566f3", "author": "9f56dd64-161d-43a6-b9c3-555944290a09", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-22729", "type": "exploited", "source": "https://vulnerability.circl.lu/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog/adbf6d40-dce4-42e0-a03b-1958764073b4", "content": "", "creation_timestamp": "2026-06-23T14:06:11.283150Z"} https://vulnerability.circl.lu/sighting/1478d98d-28d7-4227-b024-8d5f81c10f16/export Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:06:11 +0000