Cursor is a code editor built for programming with AI. Prior to 2.3, hen the Cursor Agent is running in Auto-Run Mode with Allowlist mode enabled, certain shell built-ins can still be executed without appearing in the allowlist and without requiring user approval. This allows an attacker via indirect or direct prompt injection to poison the shell environment by setting, modifying, or removing environment variables that influence trusted commands. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.

In key-based pairing, there is a possible ID due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) information disclosure of user's conversations and location with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

1. A cookie is set using the `secure` keyword for `https://target` 2. curl is redirected to or otherwise made to speak with `http://target` (same hostname, but using clear text HTTP) using the same cookie set 3. The same cookie name is set - but with just a slash as path (`path=\"/\",`). Since this site is not secure, the cookie *should* just be ignored. 4. A bug in the path comparison logic makes curl read outside a heap buffer boundary The bug either causes a crash or it potentially makes the comparison come to the wrong conclusion and lets the clear-text site override the contents of the secure cookie, contrary to expectations and depending on the memory contents immediately following the single-byte allocation that holds the path. The presumed and correct behavior would be to plainly ignore the second set of the cookie since it was already set as secure on a secure host so overriding it on an insecure host should not be okay.

Passing too large an alignment to the memalign suite of functions (memalign, posix_memalign, aligned_alloc) in the GNU C Library version 2.30 to 2.42 may result in an integer overflow, which could consequently result in a heap corruption. Note that the attacker must have control over both, the size as well as the alignment arguments of the memalign function to be able to exploit this. The size parameter must be close enough to PTRDIFF_MAX so as to overflow size_t along with the large alignment argument. This limits the malicious inputs for the alignment for memalign to the range [1<<62+ 1, 1<<63] and exactly 1<<63 for posix_memalign and aligned_alloc. Typically the alignment argument passed to such functions is a known constrained quantity (e.g. page size, block size, struct sizes) and is not attacker controlled, because of which this may not be easily exploitable in practice. An application bug could potentially result in the input alignment being too large, e.g. due to a different buffer overflow or integer overflow in the application or its dependent libraries, but that is again an uncommon usage pattern given typical sources of alignments.

A code injection in Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile allowing attackers to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution.

Using string formatting and exception handling, an attacker may bypass n8n's python-task-executor sandbox restrictions and run arbitrary unrestricted Python code in the underlying operating system. The vulnerability can be exploited via the Code block by an authenticated user with basic permissions and can lead to a full n8n instance takeover on instances operating under "Internal" execution mode. If the instance is operating under the "External" execution mode (ex. n8n's official Docker image) - arbitrary code execution occurs inside a Sidecar container and not the main node, which significantly reduces the vulnerability impact.

Calling getnetbyaddr or getnetbyaddr_r with a configured nsswitch.conf that specifies the library's DNS backend for networks and queries for a zero-valued network in the GNU C Library version 2.0 to version 2.42 can leak stack contents to the configured DNS resolver.

n8n contains a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in its workflow Expression evaluation system. Expressions supplied by authenticated users during workflow configuration may be evaluated in an execution context that is not sufficiently isolated from the underlying runtime. An authenticated attacker could abuse this behavior to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the n8n process. Successful exploitation may lead to full compromise of the affected instance, including unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification of workflows, and execution of system-level operations.