Export limit exceeded: 36263 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (36263 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-24089 | 1 Microsoft | 2 Hevc Video Extensions, High Efficiency Video Coding | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| HEVC Video Extensions Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27083 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Remote Development | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| Remote Development Extension for Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27082 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Quantum Development Kit | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| Quantum Development Kit for Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27081 | 1 Microsoft | 2 Eslint, Visual Studio Code Eslint Extension | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| Visual Studio Code ESLint Extension Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27080 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Azure Sphere | 2026-08-19 | 9.3 Critical |
| Azure Sphere Unsigned Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27075 | 1 Microsoft | 6 Azure Container Instance, Azure Container Instances, Azure Container Registry and 3 more | 2026-08-19 | 6.8 Medium |
| Azure Virtual Machine Information Disclosure Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27074 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Azure Sphere | 2026-08-19 | 6.2 Medium |
| Azure Sphere Unsigned Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-27060 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Visual Studio Code | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| Visual Studio Code Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-24108 | 1 Microsoft | 6 365 Apps, Excel, Office and 3 more | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| Microsoft Office Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2026-53361 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-08-19 | 7.1 High |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc(). Igor Ushakov reported that unix_gc() could run with gc_in_progress being false if the work is scheduled while running: Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3 -------- -------- -------- unix_schedule_gc() unix_schedule_gc() `- if (!gc_in_progress) `- if (!gc_in_progress) |- gc_in_progress = true | `- queue_work() | unix_gc() <----------------/ | | |- gc_in_progress = true ... `- queue_work() | | `- gc_in_progress = false | | unix_gc() <---------------------------------------------' | ... /* gc_in_progress == false */ | `- gc_in_progress = false unix_peek_fpl() relies on gc_in_progress not to confuse GC by MSG_PEEK. Let's set gc_in_progress to true in unix_gc(). | ||||
| CVE-2026-53090 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-08-19 | 7.8 High |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix ld_{abs,ind} failure path analysis in subprogs Usage of ld_{abs,ind} instructions got extended into subprogs some time ago via commit 09b28d76eac4 ("bpf: Add abnormal return checks."). These are only allowed in subprograms when the latter are BTF annotated and have scalar return types. The code generator in bpf_gen_ld_abs() has an abnormal exit path (r0=0 + exit) from legacy cBPF times. While the enforcement is on scalar return types, the verifier must also simulate the path of abnormal exit if the packet data load via ld_{abs,ind} failed. This is currently not the case. Fix it by having the verifier simulate both success and failure paths, and extend it in similar ways as we do for tail calls. The success path (r0=unknown, continue to next insn) is pushed onto stack for later validation and the r0=0 and return to the caller is done on the fall-through side. | ||||
| CVE-2026-52977 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-08-19 | 5.5 Medium |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: futex: Prevent lockup in requeue-PI during signal/ timeout wakeup During wait-requeue-pi (task A) and requeue-PI (task B) the following race can happen: Task A Task B futex_wait_requeue_pi() futex_setup_timer() futex_do_wait() futex_requeue() CLASS(hb, hb1)(&key1); CLASS(hb, hb2)(&key2); *timeout* futex_requeue_pi_wakeup_sync() requeue_state = Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE *blocks on hb->lock* futex_proxy_trylock_atomic() futex_requeue_pi_prepare() Q_REQUEUE_PI_IGNORE => -EAGAIN double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2) *retry* Task B acquires both hb locks and attempts to acquire the PI-lock of the top most waiter (task B). Task A is leaving early due to a signal/ timeout and started removing itself from the queue. It updates its requeue_state but can not remove it from the list because this requires the hb lock which is owned by task B. Usually task A is able to swoop the lock after task B unlocked it. However if task B is of higher priority then task A may not be able to wake up in time and acquire the lock before task B gets it again. Especially on a UP system where A is never scheduled. As a result task A blocks on the lock and task B busy loops, trying to make progress but live locks the system instead. Tragic. This can be fixed by removing the top most waiter from the list in this case. This allows task B to grab the next top waiter (if any) in the next iteration and make progress. Remove the top most waiter if futex_requeue_pi_prepare() fails. Let the waiter conditionally remove itself from the list in handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup(). | ||||
| CVE-2026-43491 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-08-19 | 5.5 Medium |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: qrtr: ns: Limit the maximum server registration per node Current code does no bound checking on the number of servers added per node. A malicious client can flood NEW_SERVER messages and exhaust memory. Fix this issue by limiting the maximum number of server registrations to 256 per node. If the NEW_SERVER message is received for an old port, then don't restrict it as it will get replaced. While at it, also rate limit the error messages in the failure path of qrtr_ns_worker(). Note that the limit of 256 is chosen based on the current platform requirements. If requirement changes in the future, this limit can be increased. | ||||
| CVE-2021-26444 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Azure Real Time Operating System | 2026-08-19 | 3.3 Low |
| Azure RTOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-42323 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Azure Real Time Operating System | 2026-08-19 | 3.3 Low |
| Azure RTOS Information Disclosure Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-42278 | 1 Microsoft | 11 Windows Server 2004, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2 and 8 more | 2026-08-19 | 7.5 High |
| Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-41356 | 1 Microsoft | 14 Windows 10, Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607 and 11 more | 2026-08-19 | 7.5 High |
| Windows Denial of Service Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-42305 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Exchange Server | 2026-08-19 | 6.5 Medium |
| Microsoft Exchange Server Spoofing Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-42288 | 1 Microsoft | 9 Windows 10, Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 1909 and 6 more | 2026-08-19 | 5.7 Medium |
| Windows Hello Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-42284 | 1 Microsoft | 17 Windows 10, Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607 and 14 more | 2026-08-19 | 6.8 Medium |
| Windows Hyper-V Denial of Service Vulnerability | ||||