Export limit exceeded: 17249 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (17249 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-106290 | 1 Google | 2 Android, Chrome | 2026-10-08 | 4.7 Medium |
| Uninitialized resource in GPU in Google Chrome on on Android prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to read memory outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) | ||||
| CVE-2026-106395 | 1 Google | 2 Android, Chrome | 2026-10-08 | 4.7 Medium |
| Uninitialized resource in Dawn in Google Chrome on on Android prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker to read memory outside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) | ||||
| CVE-2026-82244 | 1 Budibase | 2 Budibase, Server | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Budibase versions before 3.41.3 contain a remote code execution vulnerability in plugin handling that allows authenticated admin users to execute arbitrary code by uploading a malicious plugin tarball. The server calls eval() on plugin JavaScript files without sandboxing in the main Node.js process, enabling attackers to exfiltrate environment variables and credentials with root privileges in default deployments. | ||||
| CVE-2026-61450 | 1 Getgrav | 1 Grav | 2026-10-08 | 6.5 Medium |
| Grav before 2.0.2 contains a Twig sandbox bypass that allows a page author (any admin.pages user, or anyone able to write to user/pages) to exfiltrate configuration secrets. Although the sandbox replaces the 'config' variable with a redacted facade and strips Config::get/toArray from the method allowlist, the raw container remains accessible via the allow-listed grav.offsetGet('config'), which returns the real Config object. Allow-listed object-dumping filters (json_encode, print_r, yaml_encode) then serialize that object at the PHP level without invoking the sandbox method gate, exposing the full config tree including plugin secrets such as SMTP credentials, API keys, and plugin DB credentials. This is an incomplete fix for GHSA-j274-39qw-32c9. | ||||
| CVE-2026-75885 | 1 Redhat | 2 Openshift, Openshift Container Platform | 2026-10-08 | 9.3 Critical |
| A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS). | ||||
| CVE-2026-11770 | 2 Port389, Redhat | 13 389-ds-base, 389 Directory Server, Directory Server and 10 more | 2026-10-08 | 7.5 High |
| A flaw was found in 389 Directory Server. An unauthenticated remote attacker can inject LDAP search filters into the CleanAllRUV replication status-check extended operation. Because the handler performs the search against cn=config with elevated replication plugin privileges and returns a boolean match result, the attacker can extract sensitive server configuration metadata, including replication bind DNs and password storage scheme information. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70604 | 2 Electron, Electronjs | 2 Electron, Electron | 2026-10-08 | 7.4 High |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.10, 40.9.3, 41.4.0, and 42.0.0, a custom scheme registered with supportFetchAPI: true but without corsEnabled: true was not subject to CORS enforcement. A page loaded from a remote origin could therefore fetch() or XMLHttpRequest that scheme cross-origin and read the full response body, rather than the read being blocked. Apps that serve sensitive data from such a scheme and load remote or untrusted content in a renderer are affected. This issue is fixed in versions 39.8.10, 40.9.3, 41.4.0, and 42.0.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70605 | 2 Electron, Electronjs | 2 Electron, Electron | 2026-10-08 | 5.9 Medium |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3, when following HTTP redirects, net.fetch() and net.request() did not restrict which schemes a redirect could target. A remote server could redirect a request to a local resource, and if the app returns or forwards the response body, local file contents could be disclosed. Apps are only affected if they make net requests to attacker-influenced URLs with redirects followed and expose the response body. This issue is fixed in versions 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70609 | 2 Electron, Electronjs | 2 Electron, Electron | 2026-10-08 | 5.7 Medium |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.7, 40.9.0, 41.2.0, and 42.0.0-beta.1, the mode option of webContents.openDevTools() was not sanitized before use by the DevTools frontend. If an attacker can influence this value, script under their control may run in the DevTools context, which in unsandboxed configurations has access to Node.js, including when untrusted input reaches the mode argument of openDevTools() or untrusted content calls openDevTools() on a webview it embeds. This issue is fixed in 39.8.7, 40.9.0, 41.2.0, and 42.0.0-beta.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102131 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code execution as the gateway service account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102130 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102116 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102105 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102104 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102103 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102102 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102097 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary commands to be executed on the affected gateway. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102095 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102091 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Secure Data Forms | 2026-10-08 | 7.5 High |
| Kiteworks Secure Data Forms before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to make the server issue arbitrary outbound network requests and read back the responses. This could potentially be used to reach internal-only services or other network-restricted resources. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106189 | 2 Apple, Google | 2 Iphone Os, Chrome | 2026-10-08 | 7.3 High |
| Code injection in ReaderMode in Google Chrome on on iOS prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker leveraging social engineering to bypass web origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) | ||||