Export limit exceeded: 385622 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 385622 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (385622 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-73276 | 1 Erlang | 2 Erlang/otp, Erlang\/otp | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Gracefulness code ignored cases that should be rejected, resulting in possible HTTP Request Smuggling opportunities. This issue affects OTP from OTP 22.2 before OTP 27.3.4.17, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.6, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.6, corresponding to inets from 7.1.2 before 9.3.2.7, from 9.4 before 9.6.2.3, and from 9.7 before 9.7.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-73812 | 1 Erlang | 3 Erlang/otp, Erlang\/otp, Otp | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| httpd function check_header/3 rejects duplicate Content-Length (per CVE-2026-23941) but never checks for the TE+CL co-presence that RFC 9112 §6.3 identifies as a probable smuggling attempt. handle_body/3 frames by chunked and silently discards Content-Length. A CL-preferring front-end paired with chunked-preferring inets creates a classic CL.TE front-end/back-end desync. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.17, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.6, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.6, corresponding to inets from 5.10 before 9.3.2.7, from 9.4 before 9.6.2.3, and from 9.7 before 9.7.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to inets before 5.10, is affected is unknown. | ||||
| CVE-2026-74994 | 1 Erlang | 3 Erlang/otp, Erlang\/otp, Otp | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| The mod_auth module in OTP's inets httpd server, when configured with dets or mnesia authentication backends and multiple directory configuration blocks, collapses all directory blocks into a single shared user/group namespace. A user added to one protected directory is accepted as valid for all other protected directories on the same server instance. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 before OTP 27.3.4.17, from OTP 28.0 before OTP 28.5.0.6, and from OTP 29.0 before OTP 29.0.6, corresponding to inets from 5.10 before 9.3.2.7, from 9.4 before 9.6.2.3, and from 9.7 before 9.7.2. Whether OTP before OTP 17.0, corresponding to inets before 5.10, is affected is unknown. | ||||
| CVE-2026-77950 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Typescript | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an unauthenticated attacker to receive unredacted internal error data by provoking an error shape the configured error handler does not match. apply_error_handler/3 in lib/ash_typescript/rpc/errors.ex is the only hook an application has for redacting or suppressing errors before they reach the client, with a nil return dropping the error entirely. Its rescue clause logs a warning and then returns the original, pre-handler error map. Error handlers are conventionally written as pattern-matching functions over expected error shapes, so an unmatched shape raises FunctionClauseError and the raw transformed error, including any secrets carried in vars, is emitted instead. An intent to suppress an error becomes an intent to publish it. The rescue catches exceptions only, so a handler that throws or exits still propagates. This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.8.0 before 0.18.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82367 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Graphql | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session vulnerability in ash-project ash_graphql can deliver one subscription's resolved records to a different subscriber's topic. AshGraphql.Subscription.Batcher.do_send/5 reads the resolved batch from the process dictionary via Process.get(:batch_resolved) and then unconditionally deletes it. That is sound only inside a task the library owns. On the :backpressure_sync and :noproc fallbacks do_send/5 runs inline in the publishing caller's process, so if a resolver inside an outer do_send/5 triggers another synchronous Ash notification, the inner call finds the outer run's value still under :batch_resolved, adopts it as its own result, and publishes it to the inner topic, a different subscription document with a different actor and tenant. It then deletes the key, so the outer run publishes nothing. The key is not namespaced by run, so records cannot be told apart. The fix saves, clears, and restores :batch_resolved around each run. This issue affects ash_graphql: from 1.4.0 before 1.11.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82730 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash Typescript | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in ash-project ash_typescript allows an unauthorized RPC caller to read attribute values that Ash field policies denied. When a field policy denies an attribute, Ash substitutes %Ash.ForbiddenField{}, which retains the real value in original_value because embedded resources must remain writable, and hides it from Inspect rather than removing it. AshTypescript.Rpc.ResultProcessor strips these markers to nil on its template-driven paths, but normalize_primitive/1 in lib/ash_typescript/rpc/result_processor.ex had no such clause, so a marker fell through to the generic struct branch which calls Map.from_struct/1 and serializes every key, original_value included. The denied value is returned to the caller inside the marker that represents its own denial. The simplest trigger is an action returning an embedded resource as a map, which routes through normalize_resource_struct/2 with an empty template. normalize_value_for_json/1 is a public, unguarded entry point to the same path. This issue affects ash_typescript: from 0.11.0 before 0.18.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82744 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Not Failing Securely (Failing Open) vulnerability in ash-project ash skips an Ash.Reactor change when the guard controlling it raises, so a change meant to run does not. An Ash.Reactor change step can be gated by where validations that decide whether the change runs. Ash.Reactor.ChangeStep (lib/ash/reactor/steps/change_step.ex) evaluated those guards in apply_where_clauses/3, and apply_validation rescued any exception into {:error, error}. The reduce treated that identically to a guard whose condition was simply not met and bypassed the change. So when a guard raises (for example on attacker-influenced input), a change that enforces a security-relevant modification is skipped rather than failing the step. The fix distinguishes a raised exception (now {:raised, error}) and halts the step with an error, failing closed. This issue affects ash: from 3.0.0-rc.17 before 3.32.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82745 | 1 Ash-project | 1 Ash | 2026-09-01 | N/A |
| Improper Access Control vulnerability in ash-project ash lets a create action overwrite an existing record when the ETS or Mnesia data layer is used, because neither enforced primary-key uniqueness on insert. Unlike a SQL data layer, whose unique primary-key constraint rejects a duplicate, the ETS and Mnesia data layers implemented create as a keyed insert that replaces any existing entry with the same primary key (lib/ash/data_layer/ets/ets.ex, lib/ash/data_layer/mnesia/mnesia.ex). An actor who can set the primary key on a create (for example a user-supplied string or integer key) can submit a create whose key matches an existing record and silently overwrite it, destroying and replacing another entity's data without going through the update action or its policies. The fix rejects a create whose primary key already exists with an already-taken error, and only allows duplicates for keyless resources. This issue affects ash: from 0.4.0 before 3.32.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79683 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to write attacker-controlled content to arbitrary filesystem paths. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58572 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Code Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58569 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges.. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79686 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass access restrictions and gain escalated privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58575 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Authentication Bypass by Spoofing vulnerability. An authenticated attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability to escalate privileges to Administrator. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58571 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains an OS Command Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79685 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 6.5 Medium |
| Dell PowerStore contains an Argument Injection vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to sensitive sensitive system information. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79684 | 1 Dell | 12 Powerstore 1000t, Powerstore 1200t, Powerstore 3000t and 9 more | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High |
| Dell PowerStore contains a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. An authenticated user with limited privileges could potentially exploit this vulnerability to bypass access restrictions and gain escalated privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18630 | 2026-09-01 | 8.8 High | ||
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command ('SQL injection') vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows SQL Injection. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V.4 before V.16. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18771 | 2026-09-01 | 7.5 High | ||
| Missing authentication for critical function vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows Authentication Bypass. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V4 before V.16. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18780 | 2026-09-01 | 7.1 High | ||
| Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V.4 before V.16. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18931 | 2026-09-01 | 9.1 Critical | ||
| Use of Hard-coded Credentials vulnerability in TMT Machine Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. Talassoft Industrial Management Software allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data. This issue affects Talassoft Industrial Management Software: from V.4 before V.16. | ||||