Export limit exceeded: 10609 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10609 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-82549 | 2 Linux Foundation, Linuxfoundation | 2 Magma, Magma | 2026-08-30 | 8.3 High |
| A vulnerability was identified in Linux Foundation Magma 1.9.0. This affects an unknown function of the component SecurityModeComplete Handler. Such manipulation leads to improper validation of integrity check value. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82647 | 1 Wwbn | 1 Avideo | 2026-08-30 | 6.1 Medium |
| WWBN AVideo contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in sendEmail.json.php that allows authenticated administrators to send mail from the site's contact address by bypassing origin checks and captcha validation. Attackers can craft a malicious web page that, when visited by an authenticated admin, sends emails with attacker-controlled subject and body to arbitrary recipients, passing SPF/DKIM/DMARC validation for phishing and brand impersonation attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82544 | 1 Wger-project | 1 Wger | 2026-08-30 | 4.3 Medium |
| A flaw has been found in wger-project wger up to 2.6.0-alpha2. This issue affects the function reset_user_password of the file wger/gym/views/gym.py of the component Password Reset. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. This patch is called 3c6ce4b7f3eeafeb35318c6c4e82b1a3fd28b314. It is advisable to implement a patch to correct this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-17522 | 2026-08-30 | 5.4 Medium | ||
| The Newsletters WordPress plugin before 4.17 does not perform any nonce or capability check when saving one of its settings screens, and writes every submitted parameter into its own options, allowing attackers to make a logged in administrator overwrite arbitrary Newsletters WordPress plugin before 4.17 settings, including the credential protecting its API, via a Cross-Site Request Forgery attack. | ||||
| CVE-2026-82468 | 2026-08-29 | 4.7 Medium | ||
| Rodauth before 2.47.0 contains a cross-site request forgery protection bypass vulnerability in the JSON request content type validation. Attackers can craft cross-origin form posts with content types containing application/json substrings to bypass CSRF token validation and force victims to authenticate to attacker-controlled accounts. | ||||
| CVE-2026-48549 | 1 Nagios | 3 Nagios Core, Nagios Xi, Xi | 2026-08-28 | 6.5 Medium |
| Nagios Core before 4.5.13 and Nagios XI before 2026R1.5 contains a CSRF vulnerability in cmd.cgi. When no Cookie header is present, the double-submit cookie protection can be bypassed by supplying matching NagFormId and nagFormId values in the POST body, allowing a cross-site request to execute Nagios commands as a currently authenticated user. | ||||
| CVE-2025-32736 | 1 Ping Identity | 1 Pingfederate | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery weaknesses in the Administrative Console of PingFederate versions before version 13.1 may allow actors to perform unauthorized actions via specially-crafted links triggered by administrators with active sessions. | ||||
| CVE-2025-56798 | 2026-08-28 | 8.8 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Lime Technology, Inc.'s Unraid OS version 6.12.14 and earlier allows remote attackers to escalate privileges via the Unraid authentication cookie's lax same-site policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-59642 | 2 Bouncycastle, Legion Of The Bouncy Castle Inc. | 6 Bc-java, Bcpkix-fips, Bouncy Castle For Java Lts and 3 more | 2026-08-28 | 7.5 High |
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.85, CMS AuthenticatedData content not bound to MAC when authAttrs present. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.12, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.12 (1.0.X series), 2.0.12 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.12 (2.1.X series). | ||||
| CVE-2025-61480 | 2026-08-28 | 7.5 High | ||
| An issue in Vanderbilt Industries, Acre Security SPC5300.000 Main Board v.3.14.1 allows a physically proximate attacker to cause a denial of service via spoofed TCP FIN packets without validating the sequence or acknowledgment numbers. | ||||
| CVE-2026-75814 | 1 Ebyte | 1 Ebyte Ne2-d11 Firmware | 2026-08-28 | 8.8 High |
| The Ebyte device does not adequately verify the origin or authenticity of requests submitted to the web management interface. An unauthenticated remote attacker could persuade an authenticated administrator to visit a crafted page, causing unauthorized configuration changes or a disruption of device availability. | ||||
| CVE-2026-44513 | 1 Huggingface | 1 Diffusers | 2026-08-28 | 8.8 High |
| Diffusers is the a library for pretrained diffusion models. Prior to 0.38.0, a trust_remote_code bypass in DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained allows arbitrary remote code execution despite the user passing trust_remote_code=False (or omitting it, which is the default). The vulnerability has three variants, all sharing the same root cause — the trust_remote_code gate was implemented inside DiffusionPipeline.download() rather than at the actual dynamic-module load site, so any code path that bypassed or short-circuited download() also bypassed the security check. DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained('repoA', custom_pipeline='attacker/repoB', trust_remote_code=False) — the gate evaluated against repoA's file list rather than repoB's, so repoB's pipeline.py was loaded and executed. DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained('/local/snapshot', custom_pipeline='attacker/repoB', trust_remote_code=False) — the local-path branch never invoked download(), so the gate was never reached and remote code from repoB executed. DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained('/local/snapshot', trust_remote_code=False) where the snapshot contains custom component files (e.g. unet/my_unet_model.py) referenced from model_index.json — same root cause; the local path skipped download() and custom component code executed. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.38.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-78610 | 1 Watchguard | 1 Dimension | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| WatchGuard Dimension's Web UI exposes an administrator passphrase change action that lacks CSRF protection. An attacker who can induce an authenticated global administrator's browser to visit a crafted link or page can change that administrator's passphrase to an attacker-chosen value without the administrator's consent. | ||||
| CVE-2026-81733 | 1 Wwbn | 1 Avideo | 2026-08-28 | N/A |
| WWBN AVideo through 30.0 (and master up to commit 4cb576e) contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in plugin/Live/myLiveControls.save.json.php. The endpoint only checks that a user is logged in and processes customUrl, customMessage, and autoRedirect parameters from $_REQUEST via a GET request without enforcing a CSRF token or origin check. An attacker who lures a logged-in streamer to a malicious page can silently change the live-channel viewer-redirect settings (persisted in users.externalOptions), causing viewers to be redirected to a phishing site or shown a spoofed message. | ||||
| CVE-2026-73626 | 1 Jupyter | 1 Jupyterlab | 2026-08-28 | 7.5 High |
| JupyterLab versions >=4.6.0,<=4.6.1 and <=4.5.9 contain an allowlist/blocklist enforcement gap in PyPIExtensionManager.install(). A missing 'await' caused the is_install_allowed coroutine to never execute, so the extension allowlist/blocklist check was not enforced for direct callers of install(). The stock JupyterLab HTTP API and Extension Manager UI are not affected, as they perform a separate, correctly awaited check. The issue affects only deployments where a custom extension or downstream integration imports PyPIExtensionManager and calls install() directly with a package name influenced by untrusted input, an allowlist/blocklist is configured, the PyPI Extension Manager is enabled, and kernels and terminals are disabled or delegated to remote hosts. Fixed in JupyterLab 4.6.2 and 4.5.10. | ||||
| CVE-2026-73575 | 2 Synacor, Zimbra | 2 Zimbra Collaboration Suite, Collaboration | 2026-08-28 | 3.1 Low |
| In Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) before 10.1.17, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the Exchange Web Services (EWS) endpoint of Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) due to insufficient validation of request content types. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by causing an authenticated user to submit a crafted request, potentially allowing unauthorized actions to be performed on behalf of the victim. | ||||
| CVE-2026-80210 | 1 Frontaccounting | 1 Frontaccounting | 2026-08-27 | 6.5 Medium |
| FrontAccounting through 2.4.20 generates a CSRF token in end_form() in includes/ui/ui_controls.inc and embeds it as the _token hidden field in every form it renders, but only admin/users.php and admin/change_current_user_password.php call check_csrf_token() to validate it. No financial transaction handler validates the token, including gl/gl_journal.php, gl/gl_bank.php, purchasing/supplier_invoice.php, sales/customer_invoice.php, sales/customer_payments.php and admin/company_preferences.php, so those endpoints act on POST data with no origin check. An attacker who gets an authenticated user to load a page under attacker control can auto-submit a cross-origin form to any of them and have the forged journal entry, invoice, customer payment, bank transaction or company configuration change recorded under the victim's session. | ||||
| CVE-2026-76334 | 1 Splunk | 2 Splunk, Splunk Enterprise | 2026-08-27 | 6.4 Medium |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.2, 10.2.6, 10.0.9, and 9.4.14, a user who holds the "power" Splunk role could store a Dashboard Studio workflow action containing attacker-controlled Search Processing Language (SPL). When another authenticated user selects the action from Event Actions and selects Continue, Splunk Enterprise runs the injected SPL using the permissions of that user. The injected SPL could access or modify data available to that user. The vulnerability is possible because Dashboard Studio does not sufficiently validate workflow-action URLs before submitting requests. The vulnerability requires the attacker to phish the affected user by tricking them into initiating a request within their browser. The user who holds the "power" Splunk role should not be able to exploit the vulnerability at will. | ||||
| CVE-2026-81273 | 2026-08-27 | 8.1 High | ||
| Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in FluentBooking Pro <= 2.2.4 versions. | ||||
| CVE-2026-81271 | 2 Paolo, Wordpress | 2 Geodirectory, Wordpress | 2026-08-27 | 8.8 High |
| Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GeoDirectory <= 2.8.176 versions. | ||||