Export limit exceeded: 419265 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (419265 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-112511 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2026-11-04 | 6.5 Medium |
| A path handling issue was addressed with improved logic. This issue is fixed in macOS Golden Gate 27.2, macOS Sequoia 15.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.7.2. A malicious Screen Sharing peer may be able to create arbitrary symlinks as root. | ||||
| CVE-2025-11229 | 1 Wso2 | 2 Wso2 Identity Application Management Component, Wso2 Identity Server | 2026-11-04 | 7.2 High |
| The system fails to properly enforce scope authorization when the `authorize_all_scopes` configuration is enabled. This allows applications using the client credentials grant type to obtain all API scopes, including sensitive internal and console scopes, without requiring explicit authorization, bypassing intended access controls. Exploitation of this vulnerability can lead to privilege escalation, enabling unprivileged clients to perform unauthorized administrative actions, access confidential organizational data, and potentially achieve full account takeover in deployments where the `authorize_all_scopes` configuration deviates from its default disabled state. | ||||
| CVE-2026-54099 | 1 Redhat | 5 Openshift, Openshift Container Platform, Openshift For Windows Containers and 2 more | 2026-11-04 | 8.8 High |
| A flaw was found in the Windows Machine Config Operator (WMCO) for Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. The WICD CSR auto-approver validates that a Certificate Signing Request contains the organization system:wicd-nodes but does not reject additional organization values such as system:masters. A compromised Windows worker node that holds WICD credentials can submit a CSR that is auto-approved and signed by the cluster, yielding a client certificate that grants cluster-administrator privileges and enabling full cluster takeover. | ||||
| CVE-2026-42784 | 3 Red Hat, Redhat, Sequoia-pgp | 14 Enterprise Linux, Ansible Automation Platform, Ansible Automation Platform Developer and 11 more | 2026-11-04 | 7.4 High |
| A flaw was found in sequoia-openpgp. The library incorrectly infers key flags for older certificates when a key flags subpacket is missing, leading to a discrepancy in how key capabilities are viewed. This key flag confusion allows an attacker to bypass the back-signature check. Consequently, an attacker can illegitimately bind an arbitrary subkey to their own certificate and forge signatures, completely compromising cryptographic integrity. | ||||
| CVE-2026-74860 | 1 Redhat | 16 Cert Manager, Cost Management On Premise, Enterprise Linux and 13 more | 2026-11-04 | 8.5 High |
| A flaw was found in libxml2 with Python bindings enabled. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing a specially crafted XML document containing a Document Type Definition (DTD) with enumerated attribute values. This triggers a double-free error in the SAX attributeDecl callback handler, where a string is freed twice. This flaw can lead to a denial of service (DoS) due to a reproducible crash in Python applications using the libxml2 SAX bindings. | ||||
| CVE-2026-95210 | 1 Gnu | 1 Gnutls | 2026-11-04 | 4.8 Medium |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 does not reject a critical keyUsage extension when it cannot be processed, such as when extnValue is an ASN.1 NULL (05 00) instead of a BIT STRING. NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-95209 | 1 Gnu | 1 Gnutls | 2026-11-04 | 5.9 Medium |
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2026-95184 | 1 Gnu | 1 Gnutls | 2026-11-04 | 5.9 Medium |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 does not properly enforce name constraints, as demonstrated by a permitted subtree violation for "EE O=Evil accepted although outside permitted O=Good." NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-88648 | 1 Gnu | 1 Gnutls | 2026-11-04 | 3.7 Low |
| In GnuTLS v3.8.13, an excluded msUPN/SRV otherName is never checked. NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-88647 | 1 Gnu | 1 Gnutls | 2026-11-04 | 6.5 Medium |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 can perhaps unexpectedly trust a certificate on the basis of Common Name when Subject Alternative Name has an SRV otherName (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.7) whose value is an OCTET STRING. NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-67693 | 1 Gnu | 1 Gnutls | 2026-11-04 | 3.7 Low |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 does not reject end-entity X.509 certificates that contain a contradictory combination of Key Usage (KU) and Extended Key Usage (EKU). NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-13217 | 1 Zephyrproject | 1 Zephyr | 2026-11-04 | 5.9 Medium |
| The OCPP 1.6 client in subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp.c reconstructs a session handle and PDU id from the uid field of a CALLRESULT message. In ocpp_process_server_msg() the code calls atoi(strtok_r(uid, "-", &tmp)) without checking the strtok_r return value. When the server-supplied uid is empty or contains no - delimiter, strtok_r() returns NULL and atoi(NULL) dereferences a NULL pointer, which is undefined behaviour. The uid originates from network data: parse_rpc_msg() in subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp_j.c JSON-parses a frame received from the OCPP central system over TCP/WebSocket and copies the server-controlled string into the local buffer. A malicious or compromised central system, or a man-in-the-middle on a non-TLS ws:// connection, can return a malformed uid to reach the defect. No authentication beyond the existing server connection (or MITM position) is required, and the reconstructed pointer is membership-validated by ocpp_session_is_valid(), so the impact is limited to the NULL dereference rather than arbitrary pointer use. On Zephyr targets that trap access to address 0 (MMU/MPU platforms or CONFIG_NULL_POINTER_EXCEPTION_DETECTION), the dereference faults inside the OCPP reader thread and invokes the fatal handler, producing a remote denial of service of the charge point; on bare targets where address 0 is readable the call returns 0 and is benign, so the impact is availability-only and platform-conditional. The applied fix guards only the first atoi(); the second strtok_r(NULL, "-", &tmp) followed by pdu = atoi(buf) in the same function remains unguarded and the identical NULL dereference is still reachable from the same network input when the uid has a first token but no second --delimited token. A complete fix should validate the second token as well. | ||||
| CVE-2026-121803 | 2026-11-04 | N/A | ||
| This CVE ID is a duplicate of CVE-2026-80335 (VULN-002 dl_download_midst) and has been rejected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-113085 | 1 Google | 1 Chrome | 2026-11-04 | 8.8 High |
| Information leak in Media in Google Chrome prior to 156.0.8078.47 allowed a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) | ||||
| CVE-2026-113046 | 1 Google | 1 Chrome | 2026-11-04 | 8.8 High |
| UI misrepresentation in Passwords in Google Chrome prior to 156.0.8078.47 allowed a remote attacker to spoof UI elements via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) | ||||
| CVE-2026-101438 | 1 Oracle | 2 Siebel Crm, Siebel Crm Cloud Applications | 2026-11-04 | 8 High |
| Vulnerability in the Siebel CRM Cloud Applications product of Oracle Siebel CRM (component: Siebel Cloud Manager). Supported versions that are affected are 22.3-26.9. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with access to the physical communication segment attached to the hardware where the Siebel CRM Cloud Applications executes to compromise Siebel CRM Cloud Applications. While the vulnerability is in Siebel CRM Cloud Applications, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized creation, deletion or modification access to critical data or all Siebel CRM Cloud Applications accessible data as well as unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Siebel CRM Cloud Applications accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 8.0 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-101442 | 1 Oracle | 2 Siebel Crm, Siebel Crm Cloud Applications | 2026-11-04 | 3.1 Low |
| Vulnerability in the Siebel CRM Cloud Applications product of Oracle Siebel CRM (component: Siebel Cloud Manager). Supported versions that are affected are 22.3-26.9. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Siebel CRM Cloud Applications. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized read access to a subset of Siebel CRM Cloud Applications accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 3.1 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-112561 | 1 Apple | 5 Ios And Ipados, Macos, Tvos and 2 more | 2026-11-04 | 5.5 Medium |
| An out-of-bounds read was addressed with improved bounds checking. This issue is fixed in iOS 26.7.2 and iPadOS 26.7.2, iOS 27.2 and iPadOS 27.2, macOS Golden Gate 27.2, macOS Sequoia 15.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.7.2, tvOS 27.2, visionOS 27.2, watchOS 27.2. Processing a maliciously crafted image may result in disclosure of process memory. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112428 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2026-11-04 | 5.5 Medium |
| A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Golden Gate 27.2, macOS Sequoia 15.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.7.2. An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112690 | 1 Apple | 5 Ios And Ipados, Ipados, Iphone Os and 2 more | 2026-11-04 | 9.8 Critical |
| This issue was addressed with improved input validation. This issue is fixed in iOS 26.7.2 and iPadOS 26.7.2, iOS 27.2 and iPadOS 27.2, macOS Golden Gate 27.2, macOS Sequoia 15.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.7.2, visionOS 27.2. A remote attacker may be able to break out of the WebContent sandbox. | ||||