In Tensorflow before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, changing the TensorFlow's SavedModel protocol buffer and altering the name of required keys results in segfaults and data corruption while loading the model. This can cause a denial of service in products using tensorflow-serving or other inference-as-a-service installments. Fixed were added in commits f760f88b4267d981e13f4b302c437ae800445968 and fcfef195637c6e365577829c4d67681695956e7d (both going into TensorFlow 2.2.0 and 2.3.0 but not yet backported to earlier versions). However, this was not enough, as #41097 reports a different failure mode. The issue is patched in commit adf095206f25471e864a8e63a0f1caef53a0e3a6, 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.