Filtered by vendor Siemens
Subscribe
Total
2187 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-40745 | 1 Siemens | 7 Simcenter 3d, Simcenter Femap, Simcenter Star-ccm\+ Viewer and 4 more | 2026-06-29 | N/A | 3.7 LOW |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Siemens Software Center (All versions < V3.5.8.2), Simcenter 3D (All versions < V2506.6000), Simcenter Femap (All versions < V2506.0002), Simcenter STAR-CCM+ (All versions < V2602), Solid Edge SE2025 (All versions < V225.0 Update 13), Solid Edge SE2026 (All versions < V226.0 Update 04), Tecnomatix Plant Simulation (All versions < V2504.0008). Affected applications do not properly validate client certificates to connect to Analytics Service endpoint. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to perform man in the middle attacks. | |||||
| CVE-2025-6965 | 3 Apple, Siemens, Sqlite | 9 Ipados, Iphone Os, Macos and 6 more | 2026-06-26 | N/A | 7.7 HIGH |
| There exists a vulnerability in SQLite versions before 3.50.2 where the number of aggregate terms could exceed the number of columns available. This could lead to a memory corruption issue. We recommend upgrading to version 3.50.2 or above. | |||||
| CVE-2026-24349 | 1 Siemens | 1 Simatic Wincc Unified Pc Runtime | 2026-06-26 | N/A | 7.1 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V16 (All versions), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V17 (All versions), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V18 (All versions), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V19 (All versions), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V20 (All versions), SIMATIC WinCC Unified PC Runtime V21 (All versions < V21 Update 2). Insufficient protection of key material in WinCC Certificate Manager that could allow an attacker to extract sensitive information. | |||||
| CVE-2026-46749 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sinec Ins | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC INS (All versions < V1.0 SP2 Update 6). The affected application uses a password hashing implementation with a static, hardcoded salt shared across all users and installations, and is configured with an insufficient number of iterations. This could allow an attacker to efficiently recover user passwords using brute-force or precomputed attacks, potentially resulting in unauthorized access. | |||||
| CVE-2026-46748 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sinec Ins | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC INS (All versions < V1.0 SP2 Update 6). The affected system includes a binary that is configured with the cap_dac_override capability. This capability allows the process to bypass file system permission checks, resulting in unrestricted file system access. This could allow a local attacker to escalate privileges leading to arbitrary file modification and gaining root privileges on the system. | |||||
| CVE-2026-46747 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sinec Ins | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC INS (All versions < V1.0 SP2 Update 6). The affected application does not properly sanitize path input in the `GET /api/sftp/uploadFiles` endpoint used for directory listing. This allows path traversal through crafted input, enabling access to unintended file system locations. | |||||
| CVE-2026-46746 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sinec Ins | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC INS (All versions < V1.0 SP2 Update 6). The application does not properly sanitize user input in the /api/sftp/uploadFiles endpoint, allowing the injection of shell command payloads via crafted directory names. These payloads are stored and executed when directory listings are retrieved. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system with the privileges of the affected service user (sinecins). | |||||
| CVE-2026-33893 | 1 Siemens | 1 Teamcenter | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Teamcenter V2312 (All versions < V2312.0014), Teamcenter V2406 (All versions < V2406.0012), Teamcenter V2412 (All versions < V2412.0009), Teamcenter V2506 (All versions < V2506.0005), Teamcenter V2512 (All versions). The affected application contains hardcoded key which is used for obfuscation stored directly into the application. This could allow an attacker to obtain these keys and misuse them to gain unauthorized access. | |||||
| CVE-2026-33862 | 1 Siemens | 1 Teamcenter | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.3 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Teamcenter V2312 (All versions < V2312.0014), Teamcenter V2406 (All versions < V2406.0012), Teamcenter V2412 (All versions < V2412.0009), Teamcenter V2506 (All versions < V2506.0005), Teamcenter V2512 (All versions). The affected application does not properly encode or filter user-supplied data. This could allow an attacker to inject malicious code that can be executed by other users when they visit the affected page. | |||||
| CVE-2026-2673 | 2 Openssl, Siemens | 3 Openssl, Simatic Cn 4100, Simatic Cn 4100 Firmware | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server. If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the 'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported. As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction). OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat' list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure. If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been more preferred, if included. The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares, the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group. The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the various desired groups and group 'tuples'. No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies outside the FIPS boundary. OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue. | |||||
| CVE-2026-27661 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sinec Security Monitor | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC Security Monitor (All versions < V4.9.0). The affected application leaks confidential information in metadata, and files such as information on contributors and email address, on `SSM Server`. | |||||
| CVE-2026-25656 | 1 Siemens | 2 Sinec Nms, User Management Component | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC NMS (All versions < V4.0 SP3), User Management Component (UMC) (All versions < V2.15.2.1). The affected application permits improper modification of a configuration file by a low-privileged user. This could allow an attacker to load malicious DLLs, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges.(ZDI-CAN-28108) | |||||
| CVE-2026-25655 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sinec Nms | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SINEC NMS (All versions < V4.0 SP2). The affected application permits improper modification of a configuration file by a low-privileged user. This could allow an attacker to load malicious DLLs, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution with administrative privilege.(ZDI-CAN-28107) | |||||
| CVE-2026-25605 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sicam Siapp Sdk | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.7 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). The affected application performs file deletion without properly validating the file path or target. An attacker could delete files or sockets that the affected process has permission to remove, potentially resulting in denial of service or service disruption. | |||||
| CVE-2026-25573 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sicam Siapp Sdk | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.4 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). The affected application builds shell commands with caller-provided strings and executes them. An attacker could influence the executed command, potentially resulting in command injection and full system compromise. | |||||
| CVE-2026-25572 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sicam Siapp Sdk | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.1 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). The SICAM SIAPP SDK server component does not enforce maximum length checks on certain variables before use. This could allow an attacker to send an oversized input that could trigger a stack overflow crashing the process and potentially causing denial of service. | |||||
| CVE-2026-25571 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sicam Siapp Sdk | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.1 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). The SICAM SIAPP SDK client component does not enforce maximum length checks on certain variables before use. This could allow an attacker to send an oversized input that could trigger a stack overflow crashing the process and potentially causing denial of service. | |||||
| CVE-2026-25570 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sicam Siapp Sdk | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.4 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). The SICAM SIAPP SDK does not perform checks on input values potentially resulting in stack overflow. This could allow an attacker to perform code execution and denial of service. | |||||
| CVE-2026-25569 | 1 Siemens | 1 Sicam Siapp Sdk | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.4 HIGH |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). An out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in SICAM SIAPP SDK. This could allow an attacker to write data beyond the intended buffer, potentially leading to denial of service, or arbitrary code execution. | |||||
| CVE-2026-24858 | 2 Fortinet, Siemens | 8 Fortianalyzer, Fortimanager, Fortinac-f and 5 more | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| An Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability [CWE-288] vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.9, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.0.0 through 7.0.15, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.9, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.15, FortiNAC-F 7.6.3 through 7.6.5, FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.5, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.18, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.12, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.15, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.22, FortiWeb 8.0.0 through 8.0.3, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.6, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.11 may allow an attacker with a FortiCloud account and a registered device to log into other devices registered to other accounts, if FortiCloud SSO authentication is enabled on those devices. | |||||