Export limit exceeded: 13547 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (13547 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-55067 | 1 Go-vikunja | 1 Vikunja | 2026-08-28 | 5 Medium |
| Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to 2.4.0, POST /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/buckets/{bucket} allows the request body project_view_id value to be mass assigned by Bucket.Update in pkg/models/kanban.go. The permission check validates that the bucket currently belongs to the URL project and view but does not validate the body selected destination view, allowing any authenticated user to relocate an attacker-owned bucket into another tenant’s Kanban view. The injected bucket retains attacker-controlled content and ownership, enabling cross-tenant defacement. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-54746 | 1 Hatchet-dev | 1 Hatchet | 2026-08-28 | 6.4 Medium |
| Hatchet is a platform for orchestrating background tasks, AI agents, and durable workflows at scale. From 0.40.0 until 0.91.1, the Dispatcher gRPC service does not verify that a request's worker ID belongs to the tenant identified by the bearer-token context in Dispatcher/UpsertWorkerLabels and Dispatcher/Unsubscribe. An authenticated owner of any tenant who guesses another tenant's worker UUID can overwrite that worker's affinity labels or disconnect the worker from the dispatcher. This can cause cross-tenant integrity impact and denial of service on multi-tenant Hatchet Cloud or shared self-hosted deployments. Single-tenant deployments are not practically affected because the attacker and target tenant are the same. This issue is fixed in version 0.91.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-51655 | 1 Totolink | 1 T6 | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| Incorrect access control in the getMacFilterRules function of TOTOLINK T6 4.1.5cu.748_B20211015 allows unauthenticated attackers to obtain MAC filter rules via sending a crafted POST request to /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. | ||||
| CVE-2026-54754 | 1 Klever-io | 1 Klever-go | 2026-08-28 | 9.6 Critical |
| Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. Prior to 1.7.19, marketplace settlement in core/kapp/market/market.go reads MarketOrderData.ReferralPercentage from the listing while reading asset.Royalties.MarketPercentage live at purchase time. An asset owner can create a valid listing and then use AssetTrigger UpdateRoyalties to make the combined referral and royalty percentages exceed the bid. executeBuyMarket pays referral and royalty amounts unconditionally while computeMarketOwnerAmount silently skips a nonpositive seller remainder, allowing MarketBuy, BuyItNow, or auction Claim settlement to credit more KLV or sale currency than the buyer paid. This can create unbacked currency and corrupt token supply integrity. This issue is fixed in version 1.7.19. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82018 | 2026-08-28 | 6.1 Medium | ||
| IGEL OS 12 before 12.9.0, 12.8.3 LTS and IGEL OS 11 before 11.11.150 contain a secure boot bypass vulnerability in the GRUB boot stage that allows physically present attackers to gain unauthorized root access by placing an unsigned empty file named igel.conf on a partition. Attackers can exploit GRUB's fail-open signature verification behavior to drop into an interactive GRUB prompt, then boot the device's own kernel with additional command-line arguments to obtain a root shell with the disk unlocked while leaving TPM PCR values unaltered. | ||||
| CVE-2026-55065 | 1 Go-vikunja | 1 Vikunja | 2026-08-28 | 8.1 High |
| Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. From 0.24.6 until 2.4.0, DELETE /api/v1/projects/:project/views/:view permits an authenticated user to supply a view identifier from another project while authorizing only against an attacker-controlled project identifier. ProjectView.CanDelete in pkg/models/project_view_permissions.go does not establish that the view belongs to the path project, and ProjectView.Delete in pkg/models/project_view.go continues after the scoped project_views delete affects no rows. Its subsequent deletes select task_buckets and task_positions only by project_view_id, allowing cross-tenant destruction of Kanban assignments and ordering while leaving the victim view and tasks intact. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-55066 | 1 Go-vikunja | 1 Vikunja | 2026-08-28 | 7.1 High |
| Vikunja is an open-source self-hosted task management platform. Prior to 2.4.0, POST /api/v1/projects/{project}/views/{view}/buckets/{bucket}/tasks accepts a body supplied task_id but TaskBucket.CanUpdate in pkg/models/kanban_task_bucket.go authorizes only the project, view, and bucket from the URL. updateTaskBucket then calls Task.ReadOne without a separate task permission check, returns the victim task contents, and can update the task done state when the attacker chooses a done bucket. Because task identifiers are global sequential values, an authenticated user can enumerate cross-tenant tasks and modify their completion metadata through both the v1 and v2 routes that share this model. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-19294 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-08-28 | 6.4 Medium |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute and read any user's private flow due to improper authorization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18904 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-08-28 | 8.2 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.11.1 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information and inject unauthorized messages due to a namespace collision between user identifiers. | ||||
| CVE-2026-76886 | 1 Wireshark | 1 Wireshark | 2026-08-28 | 8.1 High |
| C12.22 protocol dissector crash in 4.6.0 to 4.6.7 and 4.4.0 to 4.4.18 allows denial of service | ||||
| CVE-2026-72703 | 1 Rocq-prover | 1 Rocq | 2026-08-28 | 6.3 Medium |
| The guard checker in Rocq Prover treats a parameter of a nested mutual fixpoint as uniform without examining calls between the different bodies of that fixpoint. find_uniform_parameters in kernel/inductive.ml inspects only self-recursive calls, so when no body calls itself the function concludes that every parameter is uniform. A parameter that grows through a cross-call from one body to another therefore keeps the subterm specification it inherited from the enclosing fixpoint, and a recursive call guarded by that specification is accepted although the argument is not structurally smaller. A non-terminating definition is admitted as structurally decreasing, which yields a term whose value equals its own successor and so a proof of False, from which any proposition follows. The proof requires no axioms, plugins or unsafe flags and Print Assumptions reports it as closed under the global context. Introduced in Coq 8.20 and fixed in Rocq 9.2.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-72704 | 1 Rocq-prover | 1 Rocq | 2026-08-28 | 6.3 Medium |
| The guard checker in Rocq Prover does not recheck the recursive tree representation of an inductive type parameter after that parameter has been changed by transport. A fixpoint may apply a rewrite along an equality between types to its recursive argument, which the guard checker accepts because the inductive type is preserved, while the recursive tree recorded for the parameter is altered. A second fixpoint that calls the first inherits the altered recursive tree without verification, so a call that is not structurally decreasing is accepted as terminating. The resulting non-terminating definition proves that a natural number equals its own successor and therefore False, from which any proposition follows. The demonstration uses two axioms that follow from univalence and are consistent with the calculus of inductive constructions, so the contradiction comes from the guard check rather than from the assumptions. A fix is proposed but not merged. | ||||
| CVE-2026-72705 | 1 Rocq-prover | 1 Rocq | 2026-08-28 | 6.3 Medium |
| The guard checker in Rocq Prover does not follow recursive calls made through a fixpoint's own arguments. A fixpoint may pass itself as a higher-order argument to a second fixpoint, which then applies it to a value that is not a subterm of the structural argument. Passing the recursive function to a plain definition is rejected because the checker unfolds the definition and observes the call, but passing it to a fixpoint is accepted because higher-order recursive calls through fixpoint arguments are not tracked. This admits a type that is definitionally equal to its own negation, so self-application produces False in purely definitional code, without tactics, axioms, plugins or unsafe flags, and Print Assumptions reports the result as closed under the global context. Fixed in Rocq 9.2.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-10630 | 2 Hookandhook, Wordpress | 2 Wp Courses Lms – Online Courses Builder, Elearning Courses, Courses Solution, Education Courses, Wordpress | 2026-08-28 | 4.3 Medium |
| The WP Courses LMS – Online Courses Builder, eLearning Courses, Courses Solution, Education Courses plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.29 via the 'resultID' parameter due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with custom-level access and above, to read any other user's quiz answers and scores by enumerating the incrementing resultID value via the wpcq_get_quiz_result AJAX action. The only access control on this endpoint is a nonce check (wpc_nonce) that is exposed to every logged-in user on the frontend, providing no meaningful authorization barrier. | ||||
| CVE-2026-78466 | 2 Fluent Boars, Wordpress | 2 Fluent Boards Pro, Wordpress | 2026-08-28 | 4.3 Medium |
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-78278. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2026-78278. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-78278 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | ||||
| CVE-2026-77145 | 1 Typo3 | 1 Extension "events 2" | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| The permission check for the frontend management update flow verified a different event than the one the request went on to modify. A user with frontend event management access could therefore modify events belonging to other organizers. | ||||
| CVE-2026-77143 | 1 Typo3 | 1 Extension "forum" | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| The frontend topic editing flow does not verify on the server side that the requesting visitor owns the topic being modified. As a result, a visitor who knows the identifier of a topic from the public forum can submit a modified update request for that topic directly and overwrite its content, without the application confirming ownership. Topic identifiers are visible in the public forum listing, and exploitation requires no privileged access or non-default configuration. | ||||
| CVE-2026-77142 | 1 Typo3 | 1 Extension "industry Directory" | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| The frontend company self-service editing feature relies on a template-level visibility flag to hide the edit form for company records a visitor does not own, but the corresponding write operation does not repeat this ownership check on the server side. As a result, a visitor who knows the identifier of a company record from the public directory can submit a modified update request for that record directly and overwrite its data, without the application ever confirming that the visitor owns it. | ||||
| CVE-2026-77141 | 1 Typo3 | 1 Extension "club Directory" | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| The extension resolves the targeted club record from a user-supplied request argument in its frontend edit, update, and activate actions, but performs no ownership check in any of them. An unauthenticated visitor who knows the UID of a club record can send a direct request to the update or activate action and overwrite that record, or publish one still awaiting approval, without owning it. | ||||
| CVE-2026-77140 | 1 Typo3 | 1 Extension "telephone Directory" | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| The extension validates the HMAC of a frontend employee edit link only in the action that renders the edit form, not in the action that persists the change. An unauthenticated visitor who knows the UID of a visible employee record can send a direct POST request to the update action and overwrite that record without a valid edit link or any ownership check. | ||||