[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fjbv5j-y26uhMExC1_2yefWLgtpeKlnlRjJV8gc3fAoU":3,"g5a-ex:netapp\u002Fhci_storage_node@*":101,"g5a-family:netapp\u002Fhci_storage_node":103},{"success":4,"data":5},true,{"product":6,"versions":14,"topVulnerabilitiesByEpss":15,"kevVulnerabilities":78,"seoMetadata":79,"meta":98},{"vendorName":7,"productName":8,"versionCount":9,"totalCves":10,"kevCount":9,"lastCveUpdate":11,"versions":12,"description":13},"netapp","hci_storage_node",0,39,"2021-12-13",[],"Hci Storage Node by Netapp is a technology product and 39 known security vulnerabilities. Get comprehensive security analysis, vulnerability tracking, and threat intelligence for this product.",[],[16,25,32,38,46,51,57,63,69,74],{"cveId":17,"description":18,"publishedDate":19,"cvssScore":20,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":22,"isKev":23,"epssScore":24},"CVE-2017-7658","In Eclipse Jetty Server, versions 9.2.x and older, 9.3.x (all non HTTP\u002F1.x configurations), and 9.4.x (all HTTP\u002F1.x configurations), when presented with two content-lengths headers, Jetty ignored the second. When presented with a content-length and a chunked encoding header, the content-length was ignored (as per RFC 2616). If an intermediary decided on the shorter length, but still passed on the longer body, then body content could be interpreted by Jetty as a pipelined request. If the intermediary was imposing authorization, the fake pipelined request would bypass that authorization.","2018-06-26",9.8,"v3.1","Critical",false,0.19362,{"cveId":26,"description":27,"publishedDate":28,"cvssScore":29,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":30,"isKev":23,"epssScore":31},"CVE-2020-15778","scp in OpenSSH through 8.3p1 allows command injection in the scp.c toremote function, as demonstrated by backtick characters in the destination argument. NOTE: the vendor reportedly has stated that they intentionally omit validation of \"anomalous argument transfers\" because that could \"stand a great chance of breaking existing workflows.\"","2020-07-24",7.4,"High",0.13675,{"cveId":33,"description":34,"publishedDate":35,"cvssScore":36,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":30,"isKev":23,"epssScore":37},"CVE-2020-8285","curl 7.21.0 to and including 7.73.0 is vulnerable to uncontrolled recursion due to a stack overflow issue in FTP wildcard match parsing.","2020-12-14",7.5,0.0977,{"cveId":39,"description":40,"publishedDate":41,"cvssScore":42,"cvssVersion":43,"severity":44,"isKev":23,"epssScore":45},"CVE-2007-2768","OpenSSH, when using OPIE (One-Time Passwords in Everything) for PAM, allows remote attackers to determine the existence of certain user accounts, which displays a different response if the user account exists and is configured to use one-time passwords (OTP), a similar issue to CVE-2007-2243.","2007-05-21",4.3,"v2","Medium",0.08615,{"cveId":47,"description":48,"publishedDate":49,"cvssScore":20,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":22,"isKev":23,"epssScore":50},"CVE-2016-9841","inffast.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging improper pointer arithmetic.","2017-05-23",0.0755,{"cveId":52,"description":53,"publishedDate":54,"cvssScore":55,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":44,"isKev":23,"epssScore":56},"CVE-2020-1971","The X.509 GeneralName type is a generic type for representing different types of names. One of those name types is known as EDIPartyName. OpenSSL provides a function GENERAL_NAME_cmp which compares different instances of a GENERAL_NAME to see if they are equal or not. This function behaves incorrectly when both GENERAL_NAMEs contain an EDIPARTYNAME. A NULL pointer dereference and a crash may occur leading to a possible denial of service attack. OpenSSL itself uses the GENERAL_NAME_cmp function for two purposes: 1) Comparing CRL distribution point names between an available CRL and a CRL distribution point embedded in an X509 certificate 2) When verifying that a timestamp response token signer matches the timestamp authority name (exposed via the API functions TS_RESP_verify_response and TS_RESP_verify_token) If an attacker can control both items being compared then that attacker could trigger a crash. For example if the attacker can trick a client or server into checking a malicious certificate against a malicious CRL then this may occur. Note that some applications automatically download CRLs based on a URL embedded in a certificate. This checking happens prior to the signatures on the certificate and CRL being verified. OpenSSL's s_server, s_client and verify tools have support for the \"-crl_download\" option which implements automatic CRL downloading and this attack has been demonstrated to work against those tools. Note that an unrelated bug means that affected versions of OpenSSL cannot parse or construct correct encodings of EDIPARTYNAME. However it is possible to construct a malformed EDIPARTYNAME that OpenSSL's parser will accept and hence trigger this attack. All OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 versions are affected by this issue. Other OpenSSL releases are out of support and have not been checked. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1i (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1h). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2x (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2w).","2020-12-08",5.9,0.07051,{"cveId":58,"description":59,"publishedDate":60,"cvssScore":61,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":30,"isKev":23,"epssScore":62},"CVE-2020-26116","http.client in Python 3.x before 3.5.10, 3.6.x before 3.6.12, 3.7.x before 3.7.9, and 3.8.x before 3.8.5 allows CRLF injection if the attacker controls the HTTP request method, as demonstrated by inserting CR and LF control characters in the first argument of HTTPConnection.request.","2020-09-27",7.2,0.06358,{"cveId":64,"description":65,"publishedDate":66,"cvssScore":67,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":44,"isKev":23,"epssScore":68},"CVE-2021-22876","curl 7.1.1 to and including 7.75.0 is vulnerable to an \"Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor\" by leaking credentials in the HTTP Referer: header. libcurl does not strip off user credentials from the URL when automatically populating the Referer: HTTP request header field in outgoing HTTP requests, and therefore risks leaking sensitive data to the server that is the target of the second HTTP request.","2021-04-01",5.3,0.05301,{"cveId":70,"description":71,"publishedDate":72,"cvssScore":36,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":30,"isKev":23,"epssScore":73},"CVE-2019-19050","A memory leak in the crypto_reportstat() function in crypto\u002Fcrypto_user_stat.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering crypto_reportstat_alg() failures, aka CID-c03b04dcdba1.","2019-11-18",0.05077,{"cveId":75,"description":76,"publishedDate":35,"cvssScore":36,"cvssVersion":21,"severity":30,"isKev":23,"epssScore":77},"CVE-2020-8286","curl 7.41.0 through 7.73.0 is vulnerable to an improper check for certificate revocation due to insufficient verification of the OCSP response.",0.04631,[],{"title":80,"metaDescription":81,"keywords":82,"structuredData":83},"Hci Storage Node by Netapp - Security Vulnerabilities & Analysis | Precursor Intelligence","Comprehensive security analysis for Hci Storage Node by Netapp with 39 tracked vulnerabilities. Real-time threat intelligence, CVE tracking, and security recommendations.","Hci Storage Node vulnerabilities, Hci Storage Node security, Hci Storage Node CVE, Netapp Hci Storage Node, Hci Storage Node threat intelligence, Netapp security, product security analysis, cybersecurity threats, vulnerability management, CVE tracking",{"@context":84,"@type":85,"name":86,"description":81,"url":87,"manufacturer":88,"applicationCategory":92,"softwareVersion":93,"mainEntity":94},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org","SoftwareApplication","Hci Storage Node","https:\u002F\u002Fprecursorintelligence.com\u002Fvulnerabilities\u002Ftechnologies\u002Fvendors\u002Fnetapp\u002Fhci_storage_node",{"@type":89,"name":90,"url":91},"Organization","Netapp","https:\u002F\u002Fprecursorintelligence.com\u002Fvendors\u002Fnetapp","Security Software","Multiple versions",{"@type":95,"name":96,"description":97,"vulnerabilityCount":10,"dateModified":11},"SecurityVulnerability","Hci Storage Node Security Vulnerabilities","Security vulnerabilities affecting Hci Storage Node by Netapp",{"totalVersions":9,"totalVulnerabilities":10,"kevVulnerabilities":9,"lastUpdated":11,"generatedAt":99,"apiVersion":100},"2026-10-18T18:47:46.736Z","3.0",{"rows":102,"total":9,"capped":23,"failed":9},[],[104,107],{"product":105,"cves":106},"hci_storage_node_bios",14,{"product":108,"cves":109},"hci_storage_node_firmware",5]