Export limit exceeded: 17935 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (17935 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-102116 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102105 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102104 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102103 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102102 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102097 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary commands to be executed on the affected gateway. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102095 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102091 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Secure Data Forms | 2026-10-08 | 7.5 High |
| Kiteworks Secure Data Forms before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to make the server issue arbitrary outbound network requests and read back the responses. This could potentially be used to reach internal-only services or other network-restricted resources. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106189 | 2 Apple, Google | 2 Iphone Os, Chrome | 2026-10-08 | 7.3 High |
| Code injection in ReaderMode in Google Chrome on on iOS prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker leveraging social engineering to bypass web origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) | ||||
| CVE-2026-97674 | 2 Ibm, Langflow | 2 Langflow Oss, Langflow | 2026-10-08 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection'), aka improper control of code generation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97655 | 2 Ibm, Langflow | 2 Langflow Oss, Langflow | 2026-10-08 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an incomplete blocklist in the code security scanner. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18066 | 2 Ibm, Redhat | 3 Financial Transaction Manager, Financial Transaction Manager Ftmfor Redhat Openshift, Openshift | 2026-10-08 | 7.9 High |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information and trigger unauthorized actions due to server-side request forgery. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106184 | 1 Google | 1 Chrome | 2026-10-08 | 4.3 Medium |
| Uninitialized resource in Media in Google Chrome prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to obtain cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) | ||||
| CVE-2026-106202 | 2 Google, Microsoft | 2 Chrome, Windows | 2026-10-08 | 4.7 Medium |
| Uninitialized resource in ANGLE in Google Chrome on on Windows prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to read memory outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High) | ||||
| CVE-2026-97679 | 2 Ibm, Langflow | 2 Langflow Oss, Langflow | 2026-10-08 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection') related to improper input validation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105743 | 2 Docling, Docling-project | 2 Docling, Docling | 2026-10-08 | 4 Medium |
| Docling simplifies document processing by parsing diverse formats and providing integrations with the generative AI ecosystem. From 2.91.0 until 2.132.0, validate_url_safety in docling/backend/utils/image_resource_loader.py validates a hostname with a single IPv4 lookup and then allows the HTTP client to resolve and parse the original URL again, permitting DNS rebinding, mixed public and internal address records, and backslash authority parser disagreement to reach internal services. HTMLBackendOptions(render_page=True) also allows HTTP and HTTPS browser requests without validating their resolved destination. Exploitation requires remote fetching to be enabled, and response content is exposed only when it is decoded as an image or passively rendered in a page screenshot. This issue is fixed in 2.132.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105705 | 1 Sourcecodester | 1 Drug Recommendation System | 2026-10-08 | 4.3 Medium |
| A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Drug Recommendation System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file Admin/add_drug.php. Performing a manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105689 | 1 Penpot | 1 Penpot | 2026-10-08 | N/A |
| Penpot is an open-source design and prototyping platform. Prior to 2.18.0, app.util.ssrf/blocked-address? relies on Java InetAddress predicates that do not classify NAT64, 6to4, or Teredo addresses and applies additional CIDR checks only to IPv4 values. Exploitation requires routing through a NAT64 gateway or an attacker-controlled DNS AAAA record; cloud environments with NAT64 gateways are directly exploitable. A user controlling a media import URL, or an administrator controlling a webhook URL, can then supply an IPv6 transition address that embeds a cloud-metadata, loopback, link-local, or private IPv4 target and bypasses the intended SSRF restrictions. Media import can disclose response bodies, while webhook delivery can expose response status as a network-probing side channel. This issue is fixed in version 2.18.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97676 | 2 Ibm, Langflow | 2 Langflow Oss, Langflow | 2026-10-08 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in code, resulting in a sandbox escape. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106223 | 1 Google | 2 Android, Chrome | 2026-10-08 | 4.7 Medium |
| Uninitialized resource in GPU in Google Chrome on on Android prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to read memory outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) | ||||