Export limit exceeded: 409261 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (2066 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-31463 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 4.7 Medium |
| Ironic-image is an OpenStack Ironic deployment packaged and configured by Metal3. When the reverse proxy mode is enabled by the `IRONIC_REVERSE_PROXY_SETUP` variable set to `true`, 1) HTTP basic credentials are validated on the HTTPD side in a separate container, not in the Ironic service itself and 2) Ironic listens in host network on a private port 6388 on localhost by default. As a result, when the reverse proxy mode is used, any Pod or local Unix user on the control plane Node can access the Ironic API on the private port without authentication. A similar problem affects Ironic Inspector (`INSPECTOR_REVERSE_PROXY_SETUP` set to `true`), although the attack potential is smaller there. This issue affects operators deploying ironic-image in the reverse proxy mode, which is the recommended mode when TLS is used (also recommended), with the `IRONIC_PRIVATE_PORT` variable unset or set to a numeric value. In this case, an attacker with enough privileges to launch a pod on the control plane with host networking can access Ironic API and use it to modify bare-metal machine, e.g. provision them with a new image or change their BIOS settings. This vulnerability is fixed in 24.1.1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-4076 | 2 Isc, Redhat | 7 Bind, Enterprise Linux, Openshift and 4 more | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| Client queries that trigger serving stale data and that also require lookups in local authoritative zone data may result in an assertion failure. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.13 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.27, 9.19.0 through 9.19.24, 9.11.33-S1 through 9.11.37-S1, 9.16.13-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.27-S1. | ||||
| CVE-2023-45290 | 1 Redhat | 20 Advanced Cluster Security, Ansible Automation Platform, Ceph Storage and 17 more | 2026-04-15 | 6.5 Medium |
| When parsing a multipart form (either explicitly with Request.ParseMultipartForm or implicitly with Request.FormValue, Request.PostFormValue, or Request.FormFile), limits on the total size of the parsed form were not applied to the memory consumed while reading a single form line. This permits a maliciously crafted input containing very long lines to cause allocation of arbitrarily large amounts of memory, potentially leading to memory exhaustion. With fix, the ParseMultipartForm function now correctly limits the maximum size of form lines. | ||||
| CVE-2024-24784 | 2 Go Standard Library, Redhat | 14 Net\/mail, Advanced Cluster Security, Ceph Storage and 11 more | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| The ParseAddressList function incorrectly handles comments (text within parentheses) within display names. Since this is a misalignment with conforming address parsers, it can result in different trust decisions being made by programs using different parsers. | ||||
| CVE-2025-8941 | 1 Redhat | 13 Cert Manager, Confidential Compute Attestation, Discovery and 10 more | 2026-04-15 | 7.8 High |
| A flaw was found in linux-pam. The pam_namespace module may improperly handle user-controlled paths, allowing local users to exploit symlink attacks and race conditions to elevate their privileges to root. This CVE provides a "complete" fix for CVE-2025-6020. | ||||
| CVE-2024-4369 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium |
| An information disclosure flaw was found in OpenShift's internal image registry operator. The AZURE_CLIENT_SECRET can be exposed through an environment variable defined in the pod definition, but is limited to Azure environments. An attacker controlling an account that has high enough permissions to obtain pod information from the openshift-image-registry namespace could use this obtained client secret to perform actions as the registry operator's Azure service account. | ||||
| CVE-2025-2786 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift Distributed Tracing | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| A flaw was found in Tempo Operator, where it creates a ServiceAccount, ClusterRole, and ClusterRoleBinding when a user deploys a TempoStack or TempoMonolithic instance. This flaw allows a user with full access to their namespace to extract the ServiceAccount token and use it to submit TokenReview and SubjectAccessReview requests, potentially revealing information about other users' permissions. While this does not allow privilege escalation or impersonation, it exposes information that could aid in gathering information for further attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2024-55565 | 1 Redhat | 11 Acm, Ansible Automation Platform, Discovery and 8 more | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| nanoid (aka Nano ID) before 5.0.9 mishandles non-integer values. 3.3.8 is also a fixed version. | ||||
| CVE-2024-0793 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 7.7 High |
| A flaw was found in kube-controller-manager. This issue occurs when the initial application of a HPA config YAML lacking a .spec.behavior.scaleUp block causes a denial of service due to KCM pods going into restart churn. | ||||
| CVE-2025-0622 | 1 Redhat | 2 Enterprise Linux, Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 6.4 Medium |
| A flaw was found in command/gpg. In some scenarios, hooks created by loaded modules are not removed when the related module is unloaded. This flaw allows an attacker to force grub2 to call the hooks once the module that registered it was unloaded, leading to a use-after-free vulnerability. If correctly exploited, this vulnerability may result in arbitrary code execution, eventually allowing the attacker to bypass secure boot protections. | ||||
| CVE-2025-0750 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 6.6 Medium |
| A vulnerability was found in CRI-O. A path traversal issue in the log management functions (UnMountPodLogs and LinkContainerLogs) may allow an attacker with permissions to create and delete Pods to unmount arbitrary host paths, leading to node-level denial of service by unmounting critical system directories. | ||||
| CVE-2025-6193 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift Ai | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium |
| A command injection vulnerability was discovered in the TrustyAI Explainability toolkit. Arbitrary commands placed in certain fields of a LMEValJob custom resource (CR) may be executed in the LMEvalJob pod's terminal. This issue can be exploited via a maliciously crafted LMEvalJob by a user with permissions to deploy a CR. | ||||
| CVE-2024-37298 | 2 Gorillatoolkit, Redhat | 6 Schema, Advanced Cluster Security, Enterprise Linux and 3 more | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| gorilla/schema converts structs to and from form values. Prior to version 1.4.1 Running `schema.Decoder.Decode()` on a struct that has a field of type `[]struct{...}` opens it up to malicious attacks regarding memory allocations, taking advantage of the sparse slice functionality. Any use of `schema.Decoder.Decode()` on a struct with arrays of other structs could be vulnerable to this memory exhaustion vulnerability. Version 1.4.1 contains a patch for the issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-24791 | 2 Go Standard Library, Redhat | 20 Net\/http, Amq Streams, Ceph Storage and 17 more | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| The net/http HTTP/1.1 client mishandled the case where a server responds to a request with an "Expect: 100-continue" header with a non-informational (200 or higher) status. This mishandling could leave a client connection in an invalid state, where the next request sent on the connection will fail. An attacker sending a request to a net/http/httputil.ReverseProxy proxy can exploit this mishandling to cause a denial of service by sending "Expect: 100-continue" requests which elicit a non-informational response from the backend. Each such request leaves the proxy with an invalid connection, and causes one subsequent request using that connection to fail. | ||||
| CVE-2024-1975 | 2 Isc, Redhat | 8 Bind, Enterprise Linux, Openshift and 5 more | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| If a server hosts a zone containing a "KEY" Resource Record, or a resolver DNSSEC-validates a "KEY" Resource Record from a DNSSEC-signed domain in cache, a client can exhaust resolver CPU resources by sending a stream of SIG(0) signed requests. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.0.0 through 9.11.37, 9.16.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.27, 9.19.0 through 9.19.24, 9.9.3-S1 through 9.11.37-S1, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.49-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.27-S1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-24788 | 1 Redhat | 15 Ansible Automation Platform, Ceph Storage, Cost Management and 12 more | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium |
| A malformed DNS message in response to a query can cause the Lookup functions to get stuck in an infinite loop. | ||||
| CVE-2024-24783 | 1 Redhat | 23 Advanced Cluster Security, Ansible Automation Platform, Ceph Storage and 20 more | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium |
| Verifying a certificate chain which contains a certificate with an unknown public key algorithm will cause Certificate.Verify to panic. This affects all crypto/tls clients, and servers that set Config.ClientAuth to VerifyClientCertIfGiven or RequireAndVerifyClientCert. The default behavior is for TLS servers to not verify client certificates. | ||||
| CVE-2024-12698 | 1 Redhat | 1 Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 6.5 Medium |
| An incomplete fix for ose-olm-catalogd-container was issued for the Rapid Reset Vulnerability (CVE-2023-39325/CVE-2023-44487) where only unauthenticated streams were protected, not streams created by authenticated sources. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45775 | 1 Redhat | 2 Enterprise Linux, Openshift | 2026-04-15 | 5.2 Medium |
| A flaw was found in grub2 where the grub_extcmd_dispatcher() function calls grub_arg_list_alloc() to allocate memory for the grub's argument list. However, it fails to check in case the memory allocation fails. Once the allocation fails, a NULL point will be processed by the parse_option() function, leading grub to crash or, in some rare scenarios, corrupt the IVT data. | ||||
| CVE-2023-45289 | 1 Redhat | 12 Advanced Cluster Security, Enterprise Linux, Logging and 9 more | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| When following an HTTP redirect to a domain which is not a subdomain match or exact match of the initial domain, an http.Client does not forward sensitive headers such as "Authorization" or "Cookie". For example, a redirect from foo.com to www.foo.com will forward the Authorization header, but a redirect to bar.com will not. A maliciously crafted HTTP redirect could cause sensitive headers to be unexpectedly forwarded. | ||||