Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows local users to obtain sensitive information by listing a process because the username and password are on
Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows local users to obtain sensitive information by listing a process because the username and password are on the command line.
- Published
- Jun 1, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.3% · 22th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-522
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
31
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 31 / 40 · 7.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.3%
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| piwigo | lexiglot | cpe:2.3:a:piwigo:lexiglot |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- piwigo lexiglotup to 2014-11-20 inclusive
Same product
piwigo: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2014-8945admin.php?page=projects in Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows command injection via username and password fields.40Plan
- CVE-2014-8941Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows SQL injection via an admin.php?page=users&from_id= or admin.php?page=history&limit= URI.39Monitor
- CVE-2014-8943Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows SSRF via the admin.php?page=projects svn_url parameter.35Monitor
- CVE-2014-8942Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows CSRF.35Monitor
- CVE-2014-8937Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows denial of service because api/update.php launches svn update operations that use a great deal of resource30Monitor
- CVE-2014-8944Lexiglot through 2014-11-20 allows XSS (Reflected) via the username, or XSS (Stored) via the admin.php?page=config install_name, intro_messa21Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-522 · Insufficiently Protected CredentialsCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Session SidejackingCAPEC-102likelihood: High · High
- Signature Spoofing by Key TheftCAPEC-474likelihood: Medium · High
- Password Recovery ExploitationCAPEC-50likelihood: Medium · High
- KerberoastingCAPEC-509High
- Modify Existing ServiceCAPEC-551
- Remote Services with Stolen CredentialsCAPEC-555Very High
- Use of Known Domain CredentialsCAPEC-560likelihood: High · High
- Windows Admin Shares with Stolen CredentialsCAPEC-561
ATT&CK techniques
- Remote ServicesT1021
- Remote Services:SMB/Windows Admin SharesT1021.002
- Valid AccountsT1078
- Brute Force:Credential StuffingT1110.004
- Email Collection:Remote Email CollectionT1114.002
- External Remote ServicesT1133
- Create or Modify System ProcessT1543
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Pass The HashT1550.002
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Pass The TicketT1550.003
- Unsecured Credentials: Private KeysT1552.004
- Steal or Forge Kerberos TicketsT1558
- Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets:KerberoastingT1558.003
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.