Уязвимость модуля urllib2 языка программирования Python, связанная с недостаточной нейтрализацией специальных элементов в запросе, позволяющая нарушителю оказать воздействие на целостность данных

Уязвимость модуля urllib2 интерпретатора языка программирования Python, связанная с непринятием мер по нейтрализации последовательностей crlf, позволяющая нарушителю оказать воздействие на целостность данных

Уязвимость функций urllib.parse.urlsplit и urllib.parse.urlparse интерпретатора языка программирования Python, позволяющая нарушителю раскрыть защищаемую информацию, читать или записывать произвольные данные, или вызвать отказ в обслуживании

Security update for python36

Security update for python3

Security update for python

Security update for python

Security update for python3

Security update for python3

Security update for python36

Moderate: python3.9 security update

There's a flaw in Python 3's pydoc. A local or adjacent attacker who discovers or is able to convince another local or adjacent user to start a pydoc server could access the server and use it to disclose sensitive information belonging to the other user that they would not normally be able to access. The highest risk of this flaw is to data confidentiality. This flaw affects Python versions before 3.8.9, Python versions before 3.9.3 and Python versions before 3.10.0a7.

An issue was discovered in Python before 3.11.1. An unnecessary quadratic algorithm exists in one path when processing some inputs to the IDNA (RFC 3490) decoder, such that a crafted, unreasonably long name being presented to the decoder could lead to a CPU denial of service. Hostnames are often supplied by remote servers that could be controlled by a malicious actor; in such a scenario, they could trigger excessive CPU consumption on the client attempting to make use of an attacker-supplied supposed hostname. For example, the attack payload could be placed in the Location header of an HTTP response with status code 302. A fix is planned in 3.11.1, 3.10.9, 3.9.16, 3.8.16, and 3.7.16.

An issue was discovered in Python before 3.11.1. An unnecessary quadratic algorithm exists in one path when processing some inputs to the IDNA (RFC 3490) decoder, such that a crafted, unreasonably long name being presented to the decoder could lead to a CPU denial of service. Hostnames are often supplied by remote servers that could be controlled by a malicious actor; in such a scenario, they could trigger excessive CPU consumption on the client attempting to make use of an attacker-supplied supposed hostname. For example, the attack payload could be placed in the Location header of an HTTP response with status code 302. A fix is planned in 3.11.1, 3.10.9, 3.9.16, 3.8.16, and 3.7.16.

An issue was discovered in Python before 3.11.1. An unnecessary quadratic algorithm exists in one path when processing some inputs to the IDNA (RFC 3490) decoder, such that a crafted, unreasonably long name being presented to the decoder could lead to a CPU denial of service. Hostnames are often supplied by remote servers that could be controlled by a malicious actor; in such a scenario, they could trigger excessive CPU consumption on the client attempting to make use of an attacker-supplied supposed hostname. For example, the attack payload could be placed in the Location header of an HTTP response with status code 302. A fix is planned in 3.11.1, 3.10.9, 3.9.16, 3.8.16, and 3.7.16.

An issue was discovered in Python before 3.11.1. An unnecessary quadratic algorithm exists in one path when processing some inputs to the IDNA (RFC 3490) decoder, such that a crafted, unreasonably long name being presented to the decoder could lead to a CPU denial of service. Hostnames are often supplied by remote servers that could be controlled by a malicious actor; in such a scenario, they could trigger excessive CPU consumption on the client attempting to make use of an attacker-supplied supposed hostname. For example, the attack payload could be placed in the Location header of an HTTP response with status code 302. A fix is planned in 3.11.1, 3.10.9, 3.9.16, 3.8.16, and 3.7.16.

An issue was discovered in Python before 3.11.1. An unnecessary quadra ...

There's a flaw in Python 3's pydoc. A local or adjacent attacker who discovers or is able to convince another local or adjacent user to start a pydoc server could access the server and use it to disclose sensitive information belonging to the other user that they would not normally be able to access. The highest risk of this flaw is to data confidentiality. This flaw affects Python versions before 3.8.9, Python versions before 3.9.3 and Python versions before 3.10.0a7.

There's a flaw in Python 3's pydoc. A local or adjacent attacker who discovers or is able to convince another local or adjacent user to start a pydoc server could access the server and use it to disclose sensitive information belonging to the other user that they would not normally be able to access. The highest risk of this flaw is to data confidentiality. This flaw affects Python versions before 3.8.9, Python versions before 3.9.3 and Python versions before 3.10.0a7.

There's a flaw in Python 3's pydoc. A local or adjacent attacker who discovers or is able to convince another local or adjacent user to start a pydoc server could access the server and use it to disclose sensitive information belonging to the other user that they would not normally be able to access. The highest risk of this flaw is to data confidentiality. This flaw affects Python versions before 3.8.9, Python versions before 3.9.3 and Python versions before 3.10.0a7.