| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| In sftp in OpenSSH before 10.6, a server can trigger directory traversal (causing files to be written to unintended locations) during a recursive copy operation. |
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.3.0 until 0.6.15 and 0.7.5, the @backstage/plugin-auth-node package did not consistently honor explicit negative email verification during shared OAuth profile normalization. The affected paths include a selected profile email marked verified: false, a matching raw provider email marked email_verified: false, and an email obtained only from an ID token marked email_verified: false. Exploitation requires an admitted identity-provider user who can supply or change an unverified email and a deployment that uses the selected profile email to resolve catalog identities. The verification metadata must apply to the selected email; an absent email_verified claim alone is not affected. In an affected configuration, the user may assume another catalog identity and obtain its associated access and permissions. This issue is fixed in versions 0.6.15 and 0.7.5. |
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.16.1 and 0.17.8, the @backstage/backend-defaults package is affected by improper preservation of access restrictions during service credential delegation. An external service credential configured with access restrictions (e.g., read-only) could bypass those restrictions by routing requests through plugin delegation paths. This could allow a restricted service to perform operations beyond its intended scope, including write operations on plugins it was restricted to read-only access for. This issue is fixed in versions 0.16.1 and 0.17.8. |
| In sshd and ssh in OpenSSH before 10.6, there is no check for whether the maximum packet length is exceeded during decompression of highly compressed data. |
| In sshd in OpenSSH before 10.6, the restrict keyword (in authorized_keys) was supposed to be applicable to tunnel forwarding but was not, a different vulnerability than CVE-2026-73283. |
| 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. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of generation of code. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an expected dependency confusion. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper authorization. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption during ZIP file extraction. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to a path traversal vulnerability. |
| 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. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper access control. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to insufficiently protected credentials. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. |
