Export limit exceeded: 336356 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (7806 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-41303 | 1 Autodesk | 1 Fbx Software Development Kit | 2025-05-14 | 7.8 High |
| A user may be tricked into opening a malicious FBX file which may exploit a use-after-free vulnerability in Autodesk FBX SDK 2020 version causing the application to reference a memory location controlled by an unauthorized third party, thereby running arbitrary code on the system. | ||||
| CVE-2022-25750 | 1 Qualcomm | 30 Kailua, Kailua Firmware, Sg8275 and 27 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.4 High |
| Memory corruption in BTHOST due to double free while music playback and calls over bluetooth headset in Snapdragon Mobile | ||||
| CVE-2022-25723 | 1 Qualcomm | 16 Sd 8 Gen1 5g Firmware, Sm8475, Wcd9380 and 13 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.4 High |
| Memory corruption in multimedia due to use after free during callback registration failure in Snapdragon Mobile | ||||
| CVE-2024-49128 | 1 Microsoft | 6 Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2016, Windows Server 2019 and 3 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Sensitive data storage in improperly locked memory in Windows Remote Desktop Services allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. | ||||
| CVE-2024-49116 | 1 Microsoft | 5 Windows Server 2016, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2022 and 2 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49127 | 1 Microsoft | 15 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809 and 12 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49118 | 1 Microsoft | 14 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809 and 11 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49095 | 1 Microsoft | 10 Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2, Windows 10 22h2 and 7 more | 2025-05-13 | 7 High |
| Windows PrintWorkflowUserSvc Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49079 | 1 Microsoft | 14 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809 and 11 more | 2025-05-13 | 7.8 High |
| Input Method Editor (IME) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49142 | 1 Microsoft | 4 365 Apps, Access, Office and 1 more | 2025-05-13 | 7.8 High |
| Microsoft Access Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49132 | 1 Microsoft | 10 Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2, Windows 10 22h2 and 7 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49126 | 1 Microsoft | 15 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809 and 12 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49122 | 1 Microsoft | 15 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809 and 12 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49115 | 1 Microsoft | 5 Windows Server 2016, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2022 and 2 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49108 | 1 Microsoft | 5 Windows Server 2016, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2022 and 2 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49106 | 1 Microsoft | 5 Windows Server 2016, Windows Server 2019, Windows Server 2022 and 2 more | 2025-05-13 | 8.1 High |
| Windows Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49097 | 1 Microsoft | 10 Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2, Windows 10 22h2 and 7 more | 2025-05-13 | 7 High |
| Windows PrintWorkflowUserSvc Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49074 | 1 Microsoft | 4 Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2, Windows 10 22h2 and 1 more | 2025-05-13 | 7.8 High |
| Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2024-49069 | 1 Microsoft | 4 365 Apps, Excel, Office and 1 more | 2025-05-13 | 7.8 High |
| Microsoft Excel Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | ||||
| CVE-2021-47304 | 2 Linux, Redhat | 2 Linux Kernel, Enterprise Linux | 2025-05-12 | 5.5 Medium |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp: fix tcp_init_transfer() to not reset icsk_ca_initialized This commit fixes a bug (found by syzkaller) that could cause spurious double-initializations for congestion control modules, which could cause memory leaks or other problems for congestion control modules (like CDG) that allocate memory in their init functions. The buggy scenario constructed by syzkaller was something like: (1) create a TCP socket (2) initiate a TFO connect via sendto() (3) while socket is in TCP_SYN_SENT, call setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION), which calls: tcp_set_congestion_control() -> tcp_reinit_congestion_control() -> tcp_init_congestion_control() (4) receive ACK, connection is established, call tcp_init_transfer(), set icsk_ca_initialized=0 (without first calling cc->release()), call tcp_init_congestion_control() again. Note that in this sequence tcp_init_congestion_control() is called twice without a cc->release() call in between. Thus, for CC modules that allocate memory in their init() function, e.g, CDG, a memory leak may occur. The syzkaller tool managed to find a reproducer that triggered such a leak in CDG. The bug was introduced when that commit 8919a9b31eb4 ("tcp: Only init congestion control if not initialized already") introduced icsk_ca_initialized and set icsk_ca_initialized to 0 in tcp_init_transfer(), missing the possibility for a sequence like the one above, where a process could call setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION) in state TCP_SYN_SENT (i.e. after the connect() or TFO open sendmsg()), which would call tcp_init_congestion_control(). It did not intend to reset any initialization that the user had already explicitly made; it just missed the possibility of that particular sequence (which syzkaller managed to find). | ||||