Export limit exceeded: 402893 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (402893 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-76751 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| A missing integrity verification vulnerability exists in the OnGuard agent of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected endpoint with the elevated privileges of the agent. | ||||
| CVE-2026-76752 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| Authentication bypass vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management and API interfaces of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls and gain administrative access to the affected system. | ||||
| CVE-2026-76753 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| A format string vulnerability in an affected service interface of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to corrupt process memory. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79794 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 9.1 Critical |
| A SQL injection vulnerability in the web-based management interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an authenticated remote attacker to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass Policy Manager instance. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to run arbitrary database commands. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79797 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 8.8 High |
| An improper access control vulnerability exists in the Android client application for HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager, where application functionality may be invoked by untrusted sources. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker, with user interaction, to obtain sensitive information from the affected user. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106552 | 1 Openbsd | 1 Openssh | 2026-10-07 | 4.2 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106460 | 2026-10-07 | 6.8 Medium | ||
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106492 | 2026-10-07 | 7.6 High | ||
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106585 | 1 Openbsd | 1 Openssh | 2026-10-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106586 | 1 Openbsd | 1 Openssh | 2026-10-07 | 2.5 Low |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70357 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-07 | N/A |
| Gitea validates a repository migration hostname against its network allow and block lists before invoking Git, but the Git subprocess independently resolves the hostname when connecting. An attacker who can start a migration and control the destination's DNS can change the address between validation and connection to reach a blocked internal address. The affected path is the Git clone operation; validation in the migration HTTP client's dialer does not protect the independently connecting Git subprocess. | ||||
| CVE-2026-73278 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-07 | N/A |
| Gitea's OAuth2 and OpenID Connect sign-in paths do not require a WebAuthn challenge when WebAuthn is the account's only configured second factor. A party able to authenticate through the affected external identity flow can obtain a full session without the passkey verification enforced during password login. One affected path can also persist an external identity link, extending the compromise beyond the initial session; accounts with TOTP configured are outside the reported WebAuthn-only scenario. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93443 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 7.5 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93448 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93445 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 8.1 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93675 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 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 expected dependency confusion. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93678 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 7.6 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper authorization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93679 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 4.3 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93674 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97671 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| 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. | ||||