Cybersecurity, Compliance & Risk Advisory for the Digital Age
R4IM helps organizations strengthen security, achieve ISO compliance, manage cyber risk, and respond faster to emerging vulnerabilities — through practical, business-focused advisory services.
- AIL Framework contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its crawler submission functionality.Tracked
- An out-of-bounds read vulnerability was found in swtpm's SWTPM_NVRAM_CheckHeader() function.Medium
- Net::OAuth versions before 0.33 for Perl check HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA256 and PLAINTEXT signatures with a non-constant-time compa…Tracked
Know what's exploited today. Act before it hits you.
Stay informed about critical vulnerabilities, actively exploited CVEs, vendor advisories, and emerging cyber risks. R4IM continuously monitors trusted public sources and simplifies the actions organizations should take.
AIL Framework contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its crawler submission functionality.
AIL Framework contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its crawler submission functionality. A low-privileged authenticated user with access to the crawler interface can submit an arbitrary URL for crawling without adequate validation of the destination host. The crawler can therefore be instructed to make direct HTTP(S) requests to addresses that should not be reachable by application users, including loopback addresses, RFC1918 private networks, link-local addresses, and cloud metadata services such as 169.254.169.254. Manual crawler tasks bypass the existing domain blacklist because they are assigned a non-zero priority, and ordinary IP literals are classified as web targets and fetched directly rather than through Tor or another proxy. Consequently, an attacker can use the AIL server as a network pivot to access services available from the server's network context. Responses generated by these requests, including captured HTML, screenshots, and HAR data, can subsequently be accessed through the crawler interface. This makes the SSRF non-blind and may allow an attacker to disclose sensitive internal application data, service information, or cloud instance metadata and credentials. The patch introduces validation that resolves crawler destinations and rejects URLs resolving to non-global IP addresses, addressing localhost, private-network, and link-local targets.
An out-of-bounds read vulnerability was found in swtpm's SWTPM_NVRAM_CheckHeader() function.
An out-of-bounds read vulnerability was found in swtpm's SWTPM_NVRAM_CheckHeader() function. The entry guard checks the buffer length against sizeof(bh), where bh is a pointer, instead of sizeof(*bh), the actual struct size. This allows an undersized buffer to pass validation, causing a 2-byte heap overread on 64-bit systems (6 bytes on 32-bit) when accessing the totlen field. This may cause daemon termination on some platforms and leaks heap data to the log.
Net::OAuth versions before 0.33 for Perl check HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA256 and PLAINTEXT signatures with a non-constant-time compa…
Net::OAuth versions before 0.33 for Perl check HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA256 and PLAINTEXT signatures with a non-constant-time comparison in verify. Each of the three compares the signature carried in the message against the locally computed one with the eq operator, which returns as soon as the two strings differ. The time taken to reject a signature varies with the length of the matching prefix. RSA-SHA1 is not affected, as it verifies through the RSA key object rather than by comparing strings. A client that can submit messages and time the replies may recover a valid signature one byte at a time rather than searching the whole signature space. Under PLAINTEXT the value compared against is the signature key itself, so the search recovers consumer_secret and token_secret.
Net::OAuth versions before 0.33 for Perl allow the sender to choose the signature algorithm in verify.
Net::OAuth versions before 0.33 for Perl allow the sender to choose the signature algorithm in verify. verify resolves the signature method class from the signature_method parameter of the incoming message. signature_method is required on every request, so the algorithm used to check a signature is chosen by whoever sent it, and nothing lets the verifying party pin the method instead. When a message names HMAC-SHA1 or HMAC-SHA256, the key is derived from consumer_secret and token_secret rather than from the key the provider deployed. A provider deployed on RSA-SHA1 holds only the consumer public key, and RFC 5849 does not use consumer_secret for that method, so the required parameter is filled with a placeholder. A client that names HMAC-SHA1 instead has its signature checked against that placeholder, so a guessable one is enough to forge requests for any consumer key and token.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: fix off-by-one in mapping pairs decoding bounds ch…
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: fix off-by-one in mapping pairs decoding bounds checks In ntfs_mapping_pairs_decompress(), attr_end points one byte past the end of the attribute record: attr_end = (u8 *)attr + le32_to_cpu(attr->length); The two bounds checks validating that mapping pair data bytes fit within the attribute use strict greater-than (>), which allows a one-byte out-of-bounds read when the data extends exactly to attr_end: b = *buf & 0xf; if (b) { if (unlikely(buf + b > attr_end)) // off-by-one goto io_error; for (deltaxcn = (s8)buf[b--]; b; b--) deltaxcn = (deltaxcn << 8) + buf[b]; } When buf + b == attr_end, the check evaluates to false and buf[b] reads one byte past the valid attribute boundary. The same pattern appears in the LCN delta bytes check. Fix both checks to use >= so that buf[b] at exactly attr_end is correctly rejected as out of bounds.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: skip extent mft records in writeback to prevent de…
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: skip extent mft records in writeback to prevent deadlock This patch fixes the ABBA deadlock between extent_lock and extent mrec_lock triggered by xfstests generic/113, that occurs since the commit 6994acf33bae ("ntfs: use base mft_no when looking up base inode for extent record"). Path A (inode writeback): VFS writeback -> ntfs_write_inode() -> __ntfs_write_inode() -> mutex_lock(&ni->extent_lock) -> mutex_lock(&tni->mrec_lock) Path B (MFT folio writeback): VFS writeback of $MFT dirty folios -> ntfs_mft_writepages() -> ntfs_write_mft_block() -> ntfs_may_write_mft_record() -> holds one extent mrec_lock from a previous iteration -> tries to acquire another base inode extent_lock By removing all extent_lock and extent mrec_lock acquisition from the MFT folio writeback path, the ABBA lock ordering is eliminated: Path A: __ntfs_write_inode(): extent_lock -> mrec_lock Path B (removed): ntfs_write_mft_block(): mrec_lock -> extent_lock Path B is always redundant for extent records because: 1. mark_mft_record_dirty(ext_ni) does NOT dirty the MFT folio. It only sets NInoDirty(ext_ni) and marks the base VFS inode dirty via __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_DATASYNC), which triggers Path A. Therefore, normal extent modifications never create a situation where the MFT folio is dirty and Path B is not scheduled. 2. The MFT folio only gets dirtied via ntfs_mft_mark_dirty() inside ntfs_mft_record_alloc(). But all identified callers in attrib.c (ntfs_attr_add, ntfs_attr_record_move_away, ntfs_attr_make_non_resident, ntfs_attr_record_resize) follow through with mark_mft_record_dirty(), which triggers Path A to write the complete record. 3. ntfs_evict_big_inode() calls ntfs_commit_inode() before freeing extent inodes, ensuring all dirty extents are flushed via Path A before the base inode leaves the icache.
Built around your real risks, not a template.
Senior consultants. Practical recommendations. Outcomes that hold up to audits, boards, and adversaries alike.
ISO 27001 & ISMS Consulting
Build an audit-ready information security management system that stands up to scrutiny — not just at certification.
ISO 22301 & Business Continuity
Keep operations running through cyber incidents, outages, and disruption with tested continuity plans.
Vulnerability Assessment & Pentesting
Find and fix the vulnerabilities attackers will exploit — with prioritized, business-aligned remediation.
GRC & Risk Management
A practical governance, risk, and compliance program that gives leadership real visibility and control.
Cloud Security Advisory
Secure your AWS, Azure, and M365 environments against misconfiguration, identity, and data exposure risks.
ITSM & ISO 20000 Consulting
Mature IT service management with ITIL-aligned processes that improve uptime, change control, and user trust.
Meet ISO360
The all-in-one platform to plan, implement, and sustain ISO compliance.
Built by R4IM consultants for security, quality, and business continuity teams. ISO360 streamlines controls, evidence, risk, audits, and continual improvement across ISO 27001, ISO 22301, ISO 20000, and more — in one workspace.
- Multi-standard control library
- Evidence & document management
- Risk register & treatment plans
- Internal audits & CAPAs
- Real-time compliance dashboards
- Team collaboration & workflows
Practical advisory.
Audit-ready outcomes.
We work shoulder-to-shoulder with your teams to close compliance gaps, reduce cyber risk, and build security programs your auditors and your board can both trust. Two decades of UAE and global experience across ISO, cybersecurity, cloud, and GRC.
Get a clear next step on your cyber & compliance roadmap.
A senior R4IM advisor will reply within one business day. UAE-based teams available for on-site engagements across the region.