GSD-2017-20190
Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2024-04-03 05:01Details
** DISPUTED ** Some Microsoft technologies as used in Windows 8 through 11 allow a temporary client-side performance degradation during processing of multiple Unicode combining characters, aka a "Zalgo text" attack. NOTE: third parties dispute whether the computational cost of interpreting Unicode data should be considered a vulnerability.
Aliases
{
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-20190"
],
"details": "** DISPUTED ** Some Microsoft technologies as used in Windows 8 through 11 allow a temporary client-side performance degradation during processing of multiple Unicode combining characters, aka a \"Zalgo text\" attack. NOTE: third parties dispute whether the computational cost of interpreting Unicode data should be considered a vulnerability.",
"id": "GSD-2017-20190",
"modified": "2024-04-03T05:01:52.865858Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
"ID": "CVE-2017-20190",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "n/a",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "n/a"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "n/a"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "** DISPUTED ** Some Microsoft technologies as used in Windows 8 through 11 allow a temporary client-side performance degradation during processing of multiple Unicode combining characters, aka a \"Zalgo text\" attack. NOTE: third parties dispute whether the computational cost of interpreting Unicode data should be considered a vulnerability."
}
]
},
"impact": {
"cvss": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AC:L/AV:L/A:N/C:N/I:N/PR:N/S:U/UI:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "n/a"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://talk.dynalist.io/t/dynalist-is-vulnerable-to-zalgo/1234",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://talk.dynalist.io/t/dynalist-is-vulnerable-to-zalgo/1234"
},
{
"name": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text"
},
{
"name": "https://aka.ms/windowsbugbar",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://aka.ms/windowsbugbar"
}
]
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"cve": {
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Some Microsoft technologies as used in Windows 8 through 11 allow a temporary client-side performance degradation during processing of multiple Unicode combining characters, aka a \"Zalgo text\" attack. NOTE: third parties dispute whether the computational cost of interpreting Unicode data should be considered a vulnerability."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "Algunas tecnolog\u00edas de Microsoft utilizadas en Windows 8 a 11 permiten una degradaci\u00f3n temporal del rendimiento del lado del cliente durante el procesamiento de m\u00faltiples caracteres combinados Unicode, tambi\u00e9n conocido como ataque de \"texto Zalgo\". NOTA: los terceros cuestionan si el costo computacional de interpretar los datos Unicode debe considerarse una vulnerabilidad."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2017-20190",
"lastModified": "2024-04-11T00:58:25.590",
"metrics": {},
"published": "2024-03-27T00:15:07.580",
"references": [
{
"source": "cve@mitre.org",
"url": "https://aka.ms/windowsbugbar"
},
{
"source": "cve@mitre.org",
"url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text"
},
{
"source": "cve@mitre.org",
"url": "https://talk.dynalist.io/t/dynalist-is-vulnerable-to-zalgo/1234"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}
}
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…