In Tensorflow before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, the tf.raw_ops.Switch operation takes as input a tensor and a boolean and outputs two tensors. Depending on the boolean value, one of the tensors is exactly the input tensor whereas the other one should be an empty tensor. However, the eager runtime traverses all tensors in the output. Since only one of the tensors is defined, the other one is nullptr, hence we are binding a reference to nullptr. This is undefined behavior and reported as an error if compiling with -fsanitize=null. In this case, this results in a segmentation fault The issue is patched in commit da8558533d925694483d2c136a9220d6d49d843c, and is released in TensorFlow versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1, or 2.3.1.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| google / tensorflow | - | 1.15.4 |
| google / tensorflow | 2.0.0 | 2.0.3 |
| google / tensorflow | 2.1.0 | 2.1.2 |
| google / tensorflow | 2.2.0 | 2.2.1 |
| google / tensorflow | 2.3.0 | 2.3.1 |
| opensuse / leap | 15.2 | 15.2.x |
tensorflow
|
- | 1.15.4 |
tensorflow
|
2.0.0 | 2.0.3 |
tensorflow
|
2.1.0 | 2.1.2 |
tensorflow
|
2.2.0 | 2.2.0.x |
tensorflow
|
2.2.0 | 2.2.1 |
tensorflow
|
2.3.0 | 2.3.0.x |
tensorflow
|
2.3.0 | 2.3.1 |
tensorflow-cpu
|
- | 1.15.4 |
tensorflow-cpu
|
2.0.0 | 2.0.3 |
tensorflow-cpu
|
2.1.0 | 2.1.2 |
tensorflow-cpu
|
2.2.0 | 2.2.0.x |
tensorflow-cpu
|
2.2.0 | 2.2.1 |
tensorflow-cpu
|
2.3.0 | 2.3.0.x |
tensorflow-cpu
|
2.3.0 | 2.3.1 |
tensorflow-gpu
|
- | 1.15.4 |
tensorflow-gpu
|
2.0.0 | 2.0.3 |
tensorflow-gpu
|
2.1.0 | 2.1.2 |
tensorflow-gpu
|
2.2.0 | 2.2.0.x |
tensorflow-gpu
|
2.2.0 | 2.2.1 |
tensorflow-gpu
|
2.3.0 | 2.3.0.x |
tensorflow-gpu
|
2.3.0 | 2.3.1 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.