Export limit exceeded: 420493 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (420493 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-2708 | 3 Gnome, Libsoup, Redhat | 4 Libsoup, Libsoup, Enterprise Linux and 1 more | 2026-11-06 | 3.7 Low |
| A request smuggling vulnerability exists in libsoup's HTTP/1 header parsing logic. The soup_message_headers_append_common() function in libsoup/soup-message-headers.c unconditionally appends each header value without validating for duplicate or conflicting Content-Length fields. This allows an attacker to send HTTP requests containing multiple Content-Length headers with differing values. | ||||
| CVE-2019-7907 | 2026-11-06 | N/A | ||
| Reserved 2019 Magento 1 ID with no published record. Linked to VULN-9633 but never published; left REJECTED after the 2026-11-06 review of wrongly rejected IDs. | ||||
| CVE-2026-35549 | 1 Mariadb | 1 Mariadb | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| An issue was discovered in MariaDB Server before 11.4.10, 11.5.x through 11.8.x before 11.8.6, and 12.x before 12.2.2. If the caching_sha2_password authentication plugin is installed, and some user accounts are configured to use it, a large packet can crash the server because sha256_crypt_r uses alloca. | ||||
| CVE-2026-122193 | 1 Aws | 1 Trusted-remote-execution | 2026-11-06 | 9.9 Critical |
| OS command injection in the example SSM document provisioning script in Trusted Remote Execution (REX) before 2026-07-28 might allow an authenticated remote user who is permitted to invoke the Rex-RO or Rex-RW SSM document to execute arbitrary commands as root on the managed instance, bypassing Cedar policy enforcement. To remediate this issue, users should delete any Rex-RO and Rex-RW SSM documents created from the example script, in each account and Region where it was run. | ||||
| CVE-2026-120627 | 1 Private Internet Access | 1 Firefox Extension | 2026-11-06 | 7.5 High |
| The Private Internet Access Extension for Firefox contains an unguarded onAuthRequired authentication handler, leading to leakage of PIA proxy credentials when a user visits any malicious website that issues a Basic auth challenge. This issue was fixed in version 3.2.5, but reintroduced in later versions. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119170 | 2 Python, Python Software Foundation | 2 Cpython, Cpython | 2026-11-06 | N/A |
| There was a regression in how FIPS algorithms were enforced for the hashlib module. Only users that are using OpenSSL in FIPS mode are affected. Only Python 3.14.10 is affected, all other Python versions are unaffected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-116767 | 1 Absolute | 1 Secure Access | 2026-11-06 | N/A |
| CVE-2026-116767 is an improper input handling vulnerability in Secure Access servers prior to 14.61. Authenticated attackers can cause a persistent denial of service. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114232 | 2 Red Hat, Redhat | 5 Red Hat Build Of Keycloak 26.4, Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak and 2 more | 2026-11-06 | 8.1 High |
| A flaw was found in the UserManagedPermissionService of the Keycloak authorization server. The UMA Protection API, which manages user permissions, fails to validate the resourceType field when a user creates a new policy. This allows an attacker to create a policy that applies to resources owned by other users, potentially leading to unauthorized access or modification of sensitive data across the entire realm. | ||||
| CVE-2026-110932 | 2 Red Hat, Redhat | 5 Red Hat Build Of Keycloak 26.4, Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak and 2 more | 2026-11-06 | 7.5 High |
| A flaw was found in the theme resource endpoint of Keycloak, an open-source identity and access management solution. The issue occurs because the server fails to validate theme names before using them as keys for an on-disk gzip cache. An unauthenticated attacker can exploit this by sending many requests with unique, fabricated theme names, leading to persistent disk space exhaustion that survives server restarts and causes service disruptions. | ||||
| CVE-2026-101606 | 1 Oracle | 1 Communications Billing And Revenue Management | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle Communications Billing and Revenue Management product of Oracle Communications (component: BRM Server). Supported versions that are affected are 15.0.0.0.0, 15.0.1.0.0, 15.1.0.0.0 and 15.2.0.0.0. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via TLS to compromise Oracle Communications Billing and Revenue Management. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle Communications Billing and Revenue Management accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Communications Billing and Revenue Management accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 6.5 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-101599 | 1 Oracle | 1 Vm Virtualbox | 2026-11-06 | 7.5 High |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox product of Oracle Virtualization (component: Core). The supported version that is affected is 7.2.20. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). | ||||
| CVE-2026-101595 | 1 Oracle | 1 Agile Product Lifecycle Management For Process | 2026-11-06 | 5.4 Medium |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process product of Oracle Supply Chain (component: Supply Chain Relationship Mgmt). The supported version that is affected is 6.2.4. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.4 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-101585 | 1 Oracle | 1 Helidon | 2026-11-06 | 7.2 High |
| Vulnerability in the Helidon product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: helidon-cors). Supported versions that are affected are 3.0.0-3.2.21. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Helidon. While the vulnerability is in Helidon, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Helidon accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Helidon accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.2 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-44277 | 1 Fortinet | 1 Fortiauthenticator | 2026-11-06 | 9.1 Critical |
| A improper access control vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAuthenticator 8.0.2, FortiAuthenticator 8.0.0, FortiAuthenticator 6.6.0 through 6.6.8, FortiAuthenticator 6.5.0 through 6.5.6, FortiAuthenticator 6.4.0 through 6.4.10 may allow attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted requests. | ||||
| CVE-2026-118395 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 7.5 High |
| Gitea 1.27.3 stopped personal access tokens restricted to public resources (`public-only`) from creating repositories through `POST /api/v1/user/repos` and `POST /api/v1/repos/migrate`, but `POST /api/v1/org/{org}/repos`, `POST /api/v1/orgs/{org}/repos`, `POST /api/v1/orgs` and `POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/generate` still accepted such tokens. A holder of a public-only token with the needed write scopes could create private repositories in organizations where the token's owner may create repositories, create private organizations, and generate private repositories from templates. The token still could not read the private repositories it created. | ||||
| CVE-2026-118504 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| The web interface blocks issue and pull request changes on archived repositories, but several issue routes of the REST API did not check whether the repository is archived. A user allowed to change issues of an archived repository could use the API to edit, close or delete issues, change labels and deadlines, add or delete tracked time and stopwatches, add reactions, change issue blocks, and pin issues, altering data that archiving is meant to freeze. Gitea 28.2.0 added the check to the issue edit, delete and label routes; Gitea 28.3.0 applies it to all modifying repository API requests. | ||||
| CVE-2026-123833 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Intellij Idea | 2026-11-06 | 3.6 Low |
| In JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA before 2026.3 database connections could be established in untrusted projects | ||||
| CVE-2026-123836 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Datalore | 2026-11-06 | 8.8 High |
| In JetBrains Datalore before 2026.4 workspace collaborators could obtain the owner's SSH private key via Git backup | ||||
| CVE-2026-123837 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Intellij Idea | 2026-11-06 | 7.8 High |
| In JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA before 2026.3, 2026.2.1 command injection was possible in untrusted projects via Tomcat run configurations on WSL | ||||
| CVE-2026-123838 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Intellij Idea | 2026-11-06 | 7.8 High |
| In JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA before 2026.3 code execution was possible in Safe Mode via UI Designer form file | ||||