| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| SAP Commerce (Backoffice) uses the deprecated X-FRAME-OPTIONS header to protect against clickjacking. While this protection remains effective now, it may not be the case in the future as browsers might discontinue support for this header in favor of the frame-ancestors CSP directive. Hence, clickjacking could become possible then, and lead to exposure and modification of sensitive information. |
| Missing about:blank indicator in custom-sized new windows in Dia before 1.9.0 on macOS could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted domain in the window title and mislead users about the current site. |
| Affected is an unknown function of the component Login Page. The manipulation leads to improper restriction of rendered ui layers. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. |
| Cross-Frame Scripting (XFS) vulnerability in BoomCMS v9.1.4 from UXB London. XFS is a web attack technique that exploits specific browser bugs to spy on users via JavaScript. This type of attack is based on social engineering and depends entirely on the browser chosen by the user, so it is perceived as a minor threat to web application security. This vulnerability only works in older browsers. |
| Incorrect security UI in Permissions in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Incorrect security UI in Omnibox in Google Chrome on Android prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Policy bypass in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Insufficient policy enforcement in browser UI in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Incorrect security UI in Downloads in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| The issue was addressed with improved UI handling. This issue is fixed in Safari 17.6, macOS Monterey 12.7.6, macOS Sonoma 14.6, macOS Ventura 13.6.8. Visiting a website that frames malicious content may lead to UI spoofing. |
| HCL Nomad server on Domino did not configure the frame-ancestors directive in the Content-Security-Policy header by default which could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors. |
| The CGM CLININET application does not implement any mechanisms that prevent clickjacking attacks, neither HTTP security headers nor HTML-based frame‑busting protections were detected. As a result, an attacker can embed the application inside a maliciously crafted IFRAME and trick users into performing unintended actions, including potentially bypassing CSRF/XSRF defenses. |
| A missing delay in directory upload UI could have made it possible for an attacker to trick a user into granting permission via clickjacking. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 131, Firefox ESR < 128.3, Thunderbird < 128.3, and Thunderbird < 131. |
| Insufficient data validation in DevTools in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 138.0.7204.49 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to execute arbitrary code via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| In finishTransition of Transition.java, there is a possible way to bypass touch filtering restrictions due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. |
| In multiple locations, there is a possible way to mislead the user into enabling malicious phone calls forwarding due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with User execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. |
| In multiple locations, there is a possible privilege escalation due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| In maybeShowDialog of ControlsSettingsDialogManager.kt, there is a possible overlay of the ControlsSettingsDialog due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| In multiple locations, there is a possible way to trick a user into accepting a permission due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| In DefaultTransitionHandler.java, there is a possible way to unknowingly grant permissions to an app due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. |
