Export limit exceeded: 10902 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10902 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-102784 | 1 Balbooa.com | 1 Gridbox Extension For Joomla | 2026-10-08 | N/A |
| Joomla Extension - balbooa.com - CSRF in language installation feature Gridbox < 2.20.4.0 - PagesController uses a trait that validates the Joomla session token only when the HTTP method is POST. addLanguage does not require POST inside the action and reads url and zip through the generic request input. A GET request can therefore reach the action without the trait checking a token. The action still requires core.tools , but that is the victim’s permission check; it does not prove that the privileged user intended the request. | ||||
| CVE-2026-103001 | 2 Jpadilla, Pyjwt Project | 2 Pyjwt, Pyjwt | 2026-10-08 | 6.5 Medium |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.11.0 through 2.13.0, PyJWT's PyJWT._merge_options() method can modify a caller-supplied mutable options mapping when verify_signature is false. If an application reuses that same mapping for a later decode() or decode_complete() call and changes verify_signature to true, the mapping can retain false values for expiration, not-before, issued-at, audience, issuer, subject, and JWT ID checks. A signed token with invalid registered claims can then be accepted without disabling signature verification, but applications that create a fresh options mapping for each call are not affected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105683 | 1 Ghost | 1 Ghost | 2026-10-08 | 3.8 Low |
| Ghost is a Node.js content management system. From 6.14.0 until 6.27.0, an input validation issue may have allowed staff users to access local files outside the intended data storage directories on the server. This issue is fixed in version 6.27.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-35191 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-10-08 | 3.7 Low |
| Issue summary: The OpenSSL QUIC server, when configured to not preform address validation, can be forced to count incoming packets multiple times in its unvalidated credit computation, leading to a violation of the RFC 9000 unvalidated connection amplification limit of 3 times the amount of data received. Impact summary: A remote attacker able to spoof packets to a server using the OpenSSL QUIC implementation might use the server for an amplification of a DDoS attack. CWE: CWE-440: Expected Behavior Violation Description: OpenSSL's QUIC stack, when operating as a server, enforces client address validation (RFC 9000, Section 8), to confirm the peer address is not used for a traffic amplification attack. If this feature is disabled on the server, the QUIC stack limits the amount of server data that can be sent to 3 times the amount of data received from the peer address, until such time as the TLS handshake is completed. The OpenSSL QUIC server, when operating in non-validation mode, adds the length of the whole datagram received to the unvalidated credit limit when processing each QUIC packet in the datagram. A remote peer may, after establishing a connection with an initial client hello frame, send a subsequent datagram containing multiple QUIC packets, leading the server to account the entire datagram length for each packet in the datagram, resulting in the server believing that the peer has sent more data than it actually has, thereby violating the 3x amplification limit mandated by the RFC. FIPS impact: no As the QUIC stack lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79801 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the client agent software of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to introduce untrusted code. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected client system. | ||||
| 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-2026-45161 | 1 Wger-project | 1 Wger | 2026-10-07 | 5.4 Medium |
| wger is a free, open-source workout and fitness manager. Prior to version 2.6, the `trainer_login` view in wger accepts GET requests and executes `django_login()` without any CSRF protection, because Django's `CsrfViewMiddleware` only enforces tokens on unsafe methods (POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE). An attacker can embed a single `<img>` tag on a malicious page; when an authenticated trainer loads that page, their browser auto-issues the GET with the session cookie, forcibly rebinding the trainer's session to an arbitrary user account. Version 2.6 fixes the issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105292 | 1 Chaterm | 1 Chaterm | 2026-10-06 | 5.9 Medium |
| Chaterm before 0.12.1 contains a login cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows remote attackers to inject login state by sending chaterm:// callbacks without OAuth state validation. Attackers can trigger a crafted callback with attacker-controlled userInfo from a web page, signing the victim into the attacker's account so default data sync uploads saved hosts, passwords, and private keys. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84900 | 1 Hp Inc. | 2 Hp Thinpro 8.1, Hp Thinpro 9 | 2026-10-06 | N/A |
| Previous versions of HP ThinPro (prior to HP ThinPro 8.1 SP10) could potentially contain security vulnerabilities. HP has released HP ThinPro 8.1 SP10, which includes updates to mitigate potential vulnerabilities. Previous versions of HP ThinPro (prior to HP ThinPro 9 SP3) could potentially contain security vulnerabilities. HP has released HP ThinPro 9 SP3, which includes updates to mitigate potential vulnerabilities. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105783 | 1 Laurent 22 | 1 Joplin | 2026-10-06 | 8 High |
| Joplin is an open source note-taking and to-do application that organises notes and lists into notebooks. Prior to 3.7.13, when Joplin Desktop is running with the opt-in Web Clipper server enabled, the server in packages/lib/ClipperServer.ts sends Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * and allows an arbitrary website to call POST /auth and GET /auth/check because the pairing endpoints do not reject HTTP or HTTPS origins. The desktop confirmation dialog does not identify the requesting origin, so a victim who approves the generic prompt authorizes the attacking page, which then receives the permanent API token. The token provides ongoing read and write access to notes, folders, tags, resources, and master keys. This issue is fixed in version 3.7.13. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104453 | 1 Yeswiki | 1 Yeswiki | 2026-10-06 | 5.4 Medium |
| YesWiki before 4.6.7 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the admintag action that allows attackers to delete tag associations by luring administrators to crafted GET links. Attackers can supply a wide id range in the delete_tag parameter via top-level navigation, carrying the SameSite=Lax admin cookie, to bulk-delete tag triples. | ||||
| CVE-2026-80355 | 1 Dell | 6 Dell Openmanage Server Administrator Managed Node For Rhel 8.10, Dell Openmanage Server Administrator Managed Node For Rhel 9.4, Dell Openmanage Server Administrator Managed Node For Sles 15 and 3 more | 2026-10-06 | 5.4 Medium |
| Dell OpenManage Server Administrator, versions prior to 11.1.0.3, contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Remote execution. | ||||
| CVE-2026-66635 | 2 10web, Wordpress | 2 Sliderby10web, Wordpress | 2026-10-06 | 7.4 High |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in 10Web Slider by 10Web slider-wd allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Slider by 10Web: from n/a through 1.2.63. | ||||
| CVE-2026-71888 | 1 Legion Of The Bouncy Castle Inc. | 3 Bc-fja, Bc-java, Bc-lts-java | 2026-10-06 | 7.5 High |
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the streaming CMS AuthenticatedData parser accepted a message whose digestAlgorithm and authAttrs fields disagreed about whether authenticated attributes were present. RFC 5652 sec. 9.1 pairs the two, requiring that authAttrs be present whenever digestAlgorithm is, and sec. 9.2 makes the MAC cover the DER encoding of authAttrs when they are present and the eContent OCTET STRING directly when they are not. CMSAuthenticatedDataParser has to choose between those two in its constructor, before it can reach authAttrs, which comes later in the SEQUENCE, so it chose on digestAlgorithm alone: for a message with digestAlgorithm absent but authAttrs present it verified the content MAC and then returned the attributes through getAuthAttrs() as though they had been authenticated, when the MAC had never covered them. An attacker able to modify a message in transit could insert an authenticated attribute, such as an RFC 2634 ESSSecurityLabel, into an otherwise valid message while holding neither the key-encryption key nor the content-MAC key, and an application taking an authorization, routing or labelling decision from those attributes would act on attacker-chosen values. The content itself remained MAC-bound. asn1.cms.AuthenticatedData now rejects the mismatched pairing when parsing and CMSAuthenticatedDataParser cross-checks the two fields once authAttrs is read. This is a variant of CVE-2026-59642, which bound the content to the MAC for messages that legitimately carry authAttrs, and which does not address this case. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, and Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpkix-fips 1.0.13 (1.0.X series), 2.0.13 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.13 (2.1.X series), and bcutil-fips 2.0.8 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.8 (2.1.X series). | ||||
| CVE-2026-105706 | 1 Sourcecodester | 1 Drug Recommendation System | 2026-10-06 | 4.3 Medium |
| A weakness has been identified in SourceCodester Drug Recommendation System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104407 | 2026-10-06 | 7.1 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Blubrry Podcasting PowerPress Podcasting powerpress allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects PowerPress Podcasting: from n/a through 11.17.9. | ||||
| CVE-2026-56662 | 1 Getsimple-ce | 1 Getsimple Cms | 2026-10-06 | 9.6 Critical |
| GetSimple CMS is a content management system (CMS), and GetSimple CMS CE is the community edition of that CMS. Prior to version 1.5, the UpdateCE update form contained no anti-CSRF token, and the POST handler performed no token or request-origin verification. A remote attacker can host a page that auto-submits a forged POST to the update endpoint; when an authenticated administrator visits it, the server performs an attacker-directed download-and-deploy operation in the administrator's session — with no further interaction. Because the deployed content is executed (see the related ZIP-extraction advisory), this yields remote code execution. The url field is additionally written into the form unescaped, providing a secondary HTML-injection sink via a malicious upgrade.json. This issue has been patched in version 1.5. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93318 | 1 Moby | 1 Buildkit | 2026-10-05 | N/A |
| A malicious image can advertise DiffIDs from another image while containing different layer contents. In affected versions, BuildKit could use the advertised DiffIDs to derive cache and snapshot identity without validating that they matched the actual layer contents. If a BuildKit daemon with shared or persistent cache first processes such a malicious image, a later build using the victim image may mount the attacker-controlled layer contents as the base image. This can allow code from the malicious image to run in the victim build, for example by replacing a commonly executed path such as /bin/sh. The attacker-controlled code may read build secrets mounted into the build, access other build resources, alter output artifacts, or hang the build. The issue affects both regular snapshotters and lazy-pulling snapshotters such as stargz. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93317 | 1 Moby | 1 Buildkit | 2026-10-05 | 6.5 Medium |
| An unauthenticated attacker controlling a registry or OCI-layout blob source could provide blob contents that did not match the claimed digest. The resulting snapshot could be cached under that digest and reused by a later victim build, compromising build-input integrity. | ||||
| CVE-2026-85515 | 1 Legion Of The Bouncy Castle Inc. | 3 Bc-fja, Bc-java, Bc-lts-java | 2026-10-05 | N/A |
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer's integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API. | ||||