Total
6581 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-42203 | 1 Litellm | 1 Litellm | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| LiteLLM is a proxy server (AI Gateway) to call LLM APIs in OpenAI (or native) format. From version 1.80.5 to before version 1.83.7, the POST /prompts/test endpoint accepted user-supplied prompt templates and rendered them without sandboxing. A crafted template could run arbitrary code inside the LiteLLM Proxy process. The endpoint only checks that the caller presents a valid proxy API key, so any authenticated user could reach it. Depending on how the proxy is deployed, this could expose secrets in the process environment (such as provider API keys or database credentials) and allow commands to be run on the host. This issue has been patched in version 1.83.7. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41523 | 1 Vllm | 1 Vllm | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.22.0, an assert-based security check in vLLM's activation function loading allows any unauthenticated attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution on the server by publishing a malicious HuggingFace model, when vLLM runs in Python optimized mode (python -O or PYTHONOPTIMIZE=1). This vulnerability is fixed in 0.22.0. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41246 | 1 Projectcontour | 1 Contour | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| Contour is a Kubernetes ingress controller using Envoy proxy. From v1.19.0 to before v1.33.4, v1.32.5, and v1.31.6, Contour's Cookie Rewriting feature is vulnerable to Lua code injection. An attacker with RBAC permissions to create or modify HTTPProxy resources can craft a malicious value in spec.routes[].cookieRewritePolicies[].pathRewrite.value or spec.routes[].services[].cookieRewritePolicies[].pathRewrite.value that results in arbitrary code execution in the Envoy proxy. The cookie rewriting feature is internally implemented using Envoy's HTTP Lua filter. User-controlled values are interpolated into Lua source code using Go text/template without sufficient sanitization. The injected code only executes when processing traffic on the attacker's own route, which they already control. However, since Envoy runs as shared infrastructure, the injected code can also read Envoy's xDS client credentials from the filesystem or cause denial of service for other tenants sharing the Envoy instance. This vulnerability is fixed in v1.33.4, v1.32.5, and v1.31.6. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41242 | 1 Protobufjs Project | 1 Protobufjs | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| protobufjs compiles protobuf definitions into JavaScript (JS) functions. In versions prior to 8.0.1 and 7.5.5, attackers can inject arbitrary code in the "type" fields of protobuf definitions, which will then execute during object decoding using that definition. Versions 8.0.1 and 7.5.5 patch the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41179 | 1 Rclone | 1 Rclone | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Rclone is a command-line program to sync files and directories to and from different cloud storage providers. Starting in version 1.48.0 and prior to version 1.73.5, the RC endpoint `operations/fsinfo` is exposed without `AuthRequired: true` and accepts attacker-controlled `fs` input. Because `rc.GetFs(...)` supports inline backend definitions, an unauthenticated attacker can instantiate an attacker-controlled backend on demand. For the WebDAV backend, `bearer_token_command` is executed during backend initialization, making single-request unauthenticated local command execution possible on reachable RC deployments without global HTTP authentication. Version 1.73.5 patches the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41139 | 1 Mathjs | 1 Mathjs | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Math.js is an extensive math library for JavaScript and Node.js. From version 13.1.0 to before version 15.2.0, arbitrary JavaScript can be executed via the expression parser of mathjs. This issue has been patched in version 15.2.0. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41044 | 1 Apache | 2 Activemq, Activemq Broker | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Improper Input Validation, Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ, Apache ActiveMQ Broker, Apache ActiveMQ All. An authenticated attacker can use the admin web console page to construct a malicious broker name that bypasses name validation to include an xbean binding that can be later used by a VM transport to load a remote Spring XML application. The attacker can then use the DestinationView mbean to send a message to trigger a VM transport creation that will reference this malicious broker name which can lead to loading the malicious Spring XML context file. Because Spring's ResourceXmlApplicationContext instantiates all singleton beans before the BrokerService validates the configuration, arbitrary code execution occurs on the broker's JVM through bean factory methods such as Runtime.exec(). This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5; Apache ActiveMQ Broker: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5; Apache ActiveMQ All: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.2.5 or 5.19.6, which fixes the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2026-40466 | 1 Apache | 2 Activemq, Activemq Broker | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Improper Input Validation, Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ Broker, Apache ActiveMQ All, Apache ActiveMQ. An authenticated attacker may bypass the fix in CVE-2026-34197 by adding a connector using an HTTP Discovery transport via BrokerView.addNetworkConnector or BrokerView.addConnector through Jolokia if the activemq-http module is on the classpath. A malicious HTTP endpoint can return a VM transport through the HTTP URI which will bypass the validation added in CVE-2026-34197. The attacker can then use the VM transport's brokerConfig parameter to load a remote Spring XML application context using ResourceXmlApplicationContext. Because Spring's ResourceXmlApplicationContext instantiates all singleton beans before the BrokerService validates the configuration, arbitrary code execution occurs on the broker's JVM through bean factory methods such as Runtime.exec(). This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ Broker: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5; Apache ActiveMQ All: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5; Apache ActiveMQ: before 5.19.6, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.5. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 5.19.6 or 6.2.5, which fixes the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2026-40217 | 1 Litellm | 1 Litellm | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| LiteLLM through 2026-04-08 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via bytecode rewriting at the /guardrails/test_custom_code URI. | |||||
| CVE-2026-35093 | 2 Fedoraproject, Freedesktop | 2 Fedora, Libinput | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| A flaw was found in libinput. A local attacker who can place a specially crafted Lua bytecode file in certain system or user configuration directories can bypass security restrictions. This allows the attacker to run unauthorized code with the same permissions as the program using libinput, such as a graphical compositor. This could lead to the attacker monitoring keyboard input and sending that information to an external location. | |||||
| CVE-2026-34197 | 1 Apache | 2 Activemq, Activemq Broker | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Improper Input Validation, Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') vulnerability in Apache ActiveMQ Broker, Apache ActiveMQ. Apache ActiveMQ Classic exposes the Jolokia JMX-HTTP bridge at /api/jolokia/ on the web console. The default Jolokia access policy permits exec operations on all ActiveMQ MBeans (org.apache.activemq:*), including BrokerService.addNetworkConnector(String) and BrokerService.addConnector(String). An authenticated attacker can invoke these operations with a crafted discovery URI that triggers the VM transport's brokerConfig parameter to load a remote Spring XML application context using ResourceXmlApplicationContext. Because Spring's ResourceXmlApplicationContext instantiates all singleton beans before the BrokerService validates the configuration, arbitrary code execution occurs on the broker's JVM through bean factory methods such as Runtime.exec(). This issue affects Apache ActiveMQ Broker: before 5.19.4, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.3; Apache ActiveMQ All: before 5.19.4, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.3; Apache ActiveMQ: before 5.19.4, from 6.0.0 before 6.2.3. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 5.19.4 or 6.2.3, which fixes the issue | |||||
| CVE-2026-33943 | 1 Capricorn86 | 1 Happy Dom | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Happy DOM is a JavaScript implementation of a web browser without its graphical user interface. In versions 15.10.0 through 20.8.7, a code injection vulnerability in `ECMAScriptModuleCompiler` allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) by injecting arbitrary JavaScript expressions inside `export { }` declarations in ES module scripts processed by happy-dom. The compiler directly interpolates unsanitized content into generated code as an executable expression, and the quote filter does not strip backticks, allowing template literal-based payloads to bypass sanitization. Version 20.8.8 fixes the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2026-33941 | 1 Handlebarsjs | 1 Handlebars | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.2 HIGH |
| Handlebars provides the power necessary to let users build semantic templates. In versions 4.0.0 through 4.7.8, the Handlebars CLI precompiler (`bin/handlebars` / `lib/precompiler.js`) concatenates user-controlled strings — template file names and several CLI options — directly into the JavaScript it emits, without any escaping or sanitization. An attacker who can influence template filenames or CLI arguments can inject arbitrary JavaScript that executes when the generated bundle is loaded in Node.js or a browser. Version 4.7.9 fixes the issue. Some workarounds are available. First, validate all CLI inputs before invoking the precompiler. Reject filenames and option values that contain characters with JavaScript string-escaping significance (`"`, `'`, `;`, etc.). Second, use a fixed, trusted namespace string passed via a configuration file rather than command-line arguments in automated pipelines. Third, run the precompiler in a sandboxed environment (container with no write access to sensitive paths) to limit the impact of successful exploitation. Fourth, audit template filenames in any repository or package that is consumed by an automated build pipeline. | |||||
| CVE-2026-33940 | 1 Handlebarsjs | 1 Handlebars | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| Handlebars provides the power necessary to let users build semantic templates. In versions 4.0.0 through 4.7.8, a crafted object placed in the template context can bypass all conditional guards in `resolvePartial()` and cause `invokePartial()` to return `undefined`. The Handlebars runtime then treats the unresolved partial as a source that needs to be compiled, passing the crafted object to `env.compile()`. Because the object is a valid Handlebars AST containing injected code, the generated JavaScript executes arbitrary commands on the server. The attack requires the adversary to control a value that can be returned by a dynamic partial lookup. Version 4.7.9 fixes the issue. Some workarounds are available. First, use the runtime-only build (`require('handlebars/runtime')`). Without `compile()`, the fallback compilation path in `invokePartial` is unreachable. Second, sanitize context data before rendering: Ensure no value in the context is a non-primitive object that could be passed to a dynamic partial. Third, avoid dynamic partial lookups (`{{> (lookup ...)}}`) when context data is user-controlled. | |||||
| CVE-2026-33938 | 1 Handlebarsjs | 1 Handlebars | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 8.1 HIGH |
| Handlebars provides the power necessary to let users build semantic templates. In versions 4.0.0 through 4.7.8, the `@partial-block` special variable is stored in the template data context and is reachable and mutable from within a template via helpers that accept arbitrary objects. When a helper overwrites `@partial-block` with a crafted Handlebars AST, a subsequent invocation of `{{> @partial-block}}` compiles and executes that AST, enabling arbitrary JavaScript execution on the server. Version 4.7.9 fixes the issue. Some workarounds are available. First, use the runtime-only build (`require('handlebars/runtime')`). The `compile()` method is absent, eliminating the vulnerable fallback path. Second, audit registered helpers for any that write arbitrary values to context objects. Helpers should treat context data as read-only. Third, avoid registering helpers from third-party packages (such as `handlebars-helpers`) in contexts where templates or context data can be influenced by untrusted input. | |||||
| CVE-2026-33937 | 1 Handlebarsjs | 1 Handlebars | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Handlebars provides the power necessary to let users build semantic templates. In versions 4.0.0 through 4.7.8, `Handlebars.compile()` accepts a pre-parsed AST object in addition to a template string. The `value` field of a `NumberLiteral` AST node is emitted directly into the generated JavaScript without quoting or sanitization. An attacker who can supply a crafted AST to `compile()` can therefore inject and execute arbitrary JavaScript, leading to Remote Code Execution on the server. Version 4.7.9 fixes the issue. Some workarounds are available. Validate input type before calling `Handlebars.compile()`; ensure the argument is always a `string`, never a plain object or JSON-deserialized value. Use the Handlebars runtime-only build (`handlebars/runtime`) on the server if templates are pre-compiled at build time; `compile()` will be unavailable. | |||||
| CVE-2026-32640 | 1 Danthedeckie | 1 Simpleeval | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| SimpleEval is a library for adding evaluatable expressions into python projects. Prior to 1.0.5, objects (including modules) can leak dangerous modules through to direct access inside the sandbox. If the objects you've passed in as names to SimpleEval have modules or other disallowed / dangerous objects available as attrs. Additionally, dangerous functions or modules could be accessed by passing them as callbacks to other safe functions to call. The latest version 1.0.5 has this issue fixed. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.5. | |||||
| CVE-2026-32304 | 1 Locutus | 1 Locutus | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Locutus brings stdlibs of other programming languages to JavaScript for educational purposes. Prior to 3.0.14, the create_function(args, code) function passes both parameters directly to the Function constructor without any sanitization, allowing arbitrary code execution. This is distinct from CVE-2026-29091 which was call_user_func_array using eval() in v2.x. This finding affects create_function using new Function() in v3.x. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.0.14. | |||||
| CVE-2026-31236 | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL | ||
| The llm CLI tool thru 0.27.1 contains a critical code injection vulnerability via its --functions command-line argument. This argument is intended to allow users to provide custom Python function definitions. However, the tool directly executes the provided code using the unsafe exec() function without any sanitization, sandboxing, or security restrictions. An attacker can exploit this by crafting a malicious llm command with arbitrary Python code in the --functions argument and using social engineering to trick a victim into running it. This leads to arbitrary code execution on the victim's system, potentially granting the attacker full control. | |||||
| CVE-2026-31230 | 2026-07-15 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL | ||
| The Adversarial Robustness Toolbox (ART) thru 1.20.1 contains a command-line argument injection vulnerability in its Kubeflow component (robustness_evaluation_fgsm_pytorch.py). The script uses the unsafe eval() function to parse string values provided via the --clip_values and --input_shape command-line arguments. This allows an attacker to inject arbitrary Python code into these arguments, which will be executed when eval() is called. The vulnerability can be exploited remotely if an attacker can control these arguments (e.g., through pipeline configuration or automated scripts), leading to arbitrary code execution on the system running the ART evaluation. | |||||