Export limit exceeded: 350768 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 350768 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (350768 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-43893 | 1 Photostructure | 1 Exiftool-vendored.js | 2026-05-12 | 8.2 High |
| exiftool-vendored provides cross-platform Node.js access to ExifTool. Prior to 35.19.0, exiftool-vendored starts ExifTool in -stay_open True -@ - mode, where arguments are read from stdin one per line. In affected versions, several caller-supplied strings were interpolated into ExifTool arguments without rejecting line delimiters. A newline or carriage return inside one of those strings could split a single intended argument into multiple ExifTool arguments, allowing argument injection. The fix also rejects NUL bytes as unsafe control characters. Applications that pass attacker-controlled strings to affected APIs may allow an attacker to make ExifTool read files accessible to the ExifTool process, or write output to attacker-chosen file system paths accessible to that process. No remote code execution has been demonstrated. This vulnerability is fixed in 35.19.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-43888 | 1 Getoutline | 1 Outline | 2026-05-12 | 8.7 High |
| Outline is a service that allows for collaborative documentation. Prior to 1.7.0, ZipHelper.extract computes the extraction path for each entry by passing a full filesystem path through trimFileAndExt, a filename helper that calls path.basename on its input when truncating. When a zip entry's nested path is long enough to push the joined filesystem path over MAX_PATH_LENGTH (4096 bytes), trimFileAndExt silently drops all directory components and returns a bare filename. fs.createWriteStream then opens the file relative to the process working directory instead of inside the extraction sandbox, and the escaped file persists after import cleanup because cleanupExtractedData only removes the temporary extraction directory. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.7.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-43899 | 1 Thinkinai | 1 Deepchat | 2026-05-12 | 9.6 Critical |
| DeepChat is an open-source artificial intelligence agent platform that unifies models, tools, and agents. Prior to v1.0.4-beta.1, An incomplete mitigation for CVE-2025-55733 leaves DeepChat vulnerable to an arbitrary protocol execution bypass (RCE). While the patch correctly restricted api.openExternal() inside the renderer's preload/index.ts script, it structurally neglected to sanitize native Electron pop-up window handlers. An attacker or a compromised AI endpoint returning a Markdown link can trigger a target="_blank" native window interception in tabPresenter.ts, which forwards the malicious URL directly to shell.openExternal(url) and completely bypasses the isValidExternalUrl security boundary. This vulnerability is fixed in v1.0.4-beta.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-7256 | 1 Zyxel | 1 Wre6505 Firmware | 2026-05-12 | 8.8 High |
| ** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** A command injection vulnerability in the CGI program of Zyxel WRE6505 v2 firmware version V1.00(ABDV.3)C0 could allow an adjacent attacker on the LAN to execute operating system (OS) commands on a vulnerable device by sending a crafted HTTP request. | ||||
| CVE-2026-7257 | 1 Zyxel | 1 Wre6505 Firmware | 2026-05-12 | 4.4 Medium |
| ** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** An insecure storage of sensitive information vulnerability in the configuration file of Zyxel WRE6505 v2 firmware version V1.00(ABDV.3)C0 could allow a local attacker with administrator privileges to download and decrypt a backup configuration file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-7287 | 1 Zyxel | 1 Nwa1100-n Firmware | 2026-05-12 | 7.5 High |
| ** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** A buffer overflow vulnerability in the formWep(), formWlAc(), formPasswordSetup(), formUpgradeCert(), and formDelcert() functions of the “webs” binary in Zyxel NWA1100-N customized firmware version 1.00(AACE.1)C0 could allow an attacker to trigger a denial-of-service (DoS) condition by sending a crafted HTTP request to a vulnerable device. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40947 | 1 Siemens | 11 Ruggedcom Rox Mx5000, Ruggedcom Rox Mx5000re, Ruggedcom Rox Rx1400 and 8 more | 2026-05-12 | 7.5 High |
| A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < V2.17.1). Affected devices do not properly sanitize user-supplied input during the feature key installation process. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands, resulting in remote code execution with root privileges on the underlying operating system. | ||||
| CVE-2026-25787 | 2026-05-12 | 9.1 Critical | ||
| Affected devices do not properly validate and sanitize Technology Object (TO) name rendered on the "Motion Control Diagnostics" page of the web interface. This could allow an authenticated attacker who is authorized to download a TIA project into the product, to inject malicious scripts into the page. If a benign user with appropriate rights accesses the "Motion Control Diagnostics" parameters page, the malicious code would be executed in the scope of their web session. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40948 | 1 Siemens | 11 Ruggedcom Rox Mx5000, Ruggedcom Rox Mx5000re, Ruggedcom Rox Rx1400 and 8 more | 2026-05-12 | 6.8 Medium |
| A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < V2.17.1), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < V2.17.1). Affected devices do not properly validate input in the web server's JSON-RPC interface. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to read arbitrary files from the underlying operating system's filesystem with root privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-39432 | 2 Arraytics, Wordpress | 2 Timetics, Wordpress | 2026-05-12 | 8.2 High |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Arraytics Timetics allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects Timetics: from n/a through 1.0.53. | ||||
| CVE-2026-25786 | 2026-05-12 | 9.1 Critical | ||
| Affected devices do not properly validate and sanitize PLC/station name rendered on the "communication" parameters page of the web interface. This could allow an authenticated attacker who is authorized to download a TIA project into the product, to inject malicious scripts into the page. If a benign user with appropriate rights accesses the "communication" parameters page, the malicious code would be executed in the scope of their web session. | ||||
| CVE-2026-41551 | 1 Siemens | 1 Ros | 2026-05-12 | 9.1 Critical |
| A vulnerability has been identified in ROS# (All versions < V2.2.2). Affected versions contain a path traversal vulnerability because user input is not properly sanitized. This could allow a remote attacker to access arbitrary files on the device. | ||||
| CVE-2026-25789 | 2026-05-12 | 7.1 High | ||
| Affected devices do not properly validate and sanitize filenames on the Firmware Update page. This could allow a remote attacker to social engineer the user into selecting the modified firmware file to be uploaded. This would result in malitcious JavaScript execution in the context of the authenticated user's session without requiring the file to be uploaded, potentially leading to session hijacking or credential theft. | ||||
| CVE-2026-44411 | 1 Siemens | 1 Solid Edge Se2026 | 2026-05-12 | 7.8 High |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Solid Edge SE2026 (All versions < V226.0 Update 5). The affected application is vulnerable to uninitialized pointer access while parsing specially crafted PAR files. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. | ||||
| CVE-2026-6001 | 1 Abis Technology | 1 Bapsis | 2026-05-12 | 8.8 High |
| Authorization bypass through User-Controlled key vulnerability in ABIS Technology Ltd. Co. BAPSİS allows Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers. This issue affects BAPSİS: before v.202604152042. | ||||
| CVE-2026-8072 | 1 Ingeteam | 1 Ingecon Sun Ems Board | 2026-05-12 | N/A |
| Insecure generation of credentials in the local SAT (Technical Support) access functionality of the Ingecon Sun EMS Board. The vulnerability arose because the secret access credentials were not based on a secure cryptographic scheme, but rather on a weak hashing algorithm, which could allow an attacker to carry out a privilege escalation. | ||||
| CVE-2024-9143 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-05-12 | 4.3 Medium |
| Issue summary: Use of the low-level GF(2^m) elliptic curve APIs with untrusted explicit values for the field polynomial can lead to out-of-bounds memory reads or writes. Impact summary: Out of bound memory writes can lead to an application crash or even a possibility of a remote code execution, however, in all the protocols involving Elliptic Curve Cryptography that we're aware of, either only "named curves" are supported, or, if explicit curve parameters are supported, they specify an X9.62 encoding of binary (GF(2^m)) curves that can't represent problematic input values. Thus the likelihood of existence of a vulnerable application is low. In particular, the X9.62 encoding is used for ECC keys in X.509 certificates, so problematic inputs cannot occur in the context of processing X.509 certificates. Any problematic use-cases would have to be using an "exotic" curve encoding. The affected APIs include: EC_GROUP_new_curve_GF2m(), EC_GROUP_new_from_params(), and various supporting BN_GF2m_*() functions. Applications working with "exotic" explicit binary (GF(2^m)) curve parameters, that make it possible to represent invalid field polynomials with a zero constant term, via the above or similar APIs, may terminate abruptly as a result of reading or writing outside of array bounds. Remote code execution cannot easily be ruled out. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-6387 | 13 Almalinux, Amazon, Apple and 10 more | 85 Almalinux, Amazon Linux, Macos and 82 more | 2026-05-12 | 8.1 High |
| A security regression (CVE-2006-5051) was discovered in OpenSSH's server (sshd). There is a race condition which can lead sshd to handle some signals in an unsafe manner. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may be able to trigger it by failing to authenticate within a set time period. | ||||
| CVE-2024-6119 | 3 Netapp, Openssl, Redhat | 34 500f, 500f Firmware, A250 and 31 more | 2026-05-12 | 7.5 High |
| Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process. Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of service. Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when comparing the expected name with an `otherName` subject alternative name of an X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the application program. Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address. TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity of the issue is Moderate. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-5535 | 2 Openssl, Redhat | 7 Openssl, Enterprise Linux, Jboss Core Services and 4 more | 2026-05-12 | 9.1 Critical |
| Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto with an empty supported client protocols buffer may cause a crash or memory contents to be sent to the peer. Impact summary: A buffer overread can have a range of potential consequences such as unexpected application beahviour or a crash. In particular this issue could result in up to 255 bytes of arbitrary private data from memory being sent to the peer leading to a loss of confidentiality. However, only applications that directly call the SSL_select_next_proto function with a 0 length list of supported client protocols are affected by this issue. This would normally never be a valid scenario and is typically not under attacker control but may occur by accident in the case of a configuration or programming error in the calling application. The OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto is typically used by TLS applications that support ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation) or NPN (Next Protocol Negotiation). NPN is older, was never standardised and is deprecated in favour of ALPN. We believe that ALPN is significantly more widely deployed than NPN. The SSL_select_next_proto function accepts a list of protocols from the server and a list of protocols from the client and returns the first protocol that appears in the server list that also appears in the client list. In the case of no overlap between the two lists it returns the first item in the client list. In either case it will signal whether an overlap between the two lists was found. In the case where SSL_select_next_proto is called with a zero length client list it fails to notice this condition and returns the memory immediately following the client list pointer (and reports that there was no overlap in the lists). This function is typically called from a server side application callback for ALPN or a client side application callback for NPN. In the case of ALPN the list of protocols supplied by the client is guaranteed by libssl to never be zero in length. The list of server protocols comes from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length. In this case if the SSL_select_next_proto function has been called as expected (with the list supplied by the client passed in the client/client_len parameters), then the application will not be vulnerable to this issue. If the application has accidentally been configured with a zero length server list, and has accidentally passed that zero length server list in the client/client_len parameters, and has additionally failed to correctly handle a "no overlap" response (which would normally result in a handshake failure in ALPN) then it will be vulnerable to this problem. In the case of NPN, the protocol permits the client to opportunistically select a protocol when there is no overlap. OpenSSL returns the first client protocol in the no overlap case in support of this. The list of client protocols comes from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length. However if the SSL_select_next_proto function is accidentally called with a client_len of 0 then an invalid memory pointer will be returned instead. If the application uses this output as the opportunistic protocol then the loss of confidentiality will occur. This issue has been assessed as Low severity because applications are most likely to be vulnerable if they are using NPN instead of ALPN - but NPN is not widely used. It also requires an application configuration or programming error. Finally, this issue would not typically be under attacker control making active exploitation unlikely. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. Due to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing new releases of OpenSSL at this time. The fix will be included in the next releases when they become available. | ||||