Export limit exceeded: 360551 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (360551 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-57304 | 2026-06-24 | 5.4 Medium | ||
| A missing permission check in Jenkins Assembla Plugin 1.4 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL using an attacker-specified username and password. | ||||
| CVE-2026-57280 | 1 Jenkins Project | 1 Jenkins Script Security Plugin | 2026-06-24 | 8.8 High |
| Jenkins Script Security Plugin 1402.v94c9ce464861 and earlier does not intercept the implicit type casts applied to the elements of typed for-each loops in sandboxed Groovy scripts, allowing attackers able to provide such scripts to invoke arbitrary constructors and bypass the sandbox protection. | ||||
| CVE-2026-57285 | 1 Jenkins Project | 1 Jenkins Github Branch Source Plugin | 2026-06-24 | 4.3 Medium |
| A missing permission check in Jenkins GitHub Branch Source Plugin 1967.1969.v205fd594c821 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to obtain the URLs of GitHub Enterprise servers configured in the global plugin configuration. | ||||
| CVE-2026-50699 | 1 Frappe | 2 Framework, Frappe Framework | 2026-06-24 | N/A |
| A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Frappe Framework version 17.0.0-dev. An authenticated attacker with write access to Auto Repeat can persist HTML/JavaScript in reference_document using a whitelisted write path and trigger script execution when users open the affected Auto Repeat form. | ||||
| CVE-2026-9072 | 1 Ibm | 1 I | 2026-06-24 | 8.1 High |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server and IBM WebSphere Application Server Liberty - when using Intelligent Management with the WebSphere WebServer Plug-in component - are vulnerable to remote code execution and denial of service. This vulnerability can be exploited when an attacker impersonates backend servers and sends crafted responses to the plug-in. | ||||
| CVE-2026-8858 | 1 Ibm | 1 I | 2026-06-24 | 7.5 High |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server and IBM WebSphere Application Server Liberty are vulnerable to remote code execution and denial of service in the WebSphere Web Server Plug-in component. This vulnerability can be exploited when an attacker impersonates the application server and sends crafted responses to the plug-in. | ||||
| CVE-2026-10852 | 1 Ibm | 1 I | 2026-06-24 | 5.9 Medium |
| IBM WebSphere Application Server and IBM WebSphere Application Server Liberty are vulnerable to denial of service in the WebSphere WebServer Plug-in component when an attacker can pass crafted requests to the web server. | ||||
| CVE-2026-48709 | 1 Olivetin | 1 Olivetin | 2026-06-24 | 3.7 Low |
| OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. In versions 3000.0.0 and prior, The ValidateArgumentType RPC endpoint in service/internal/api/api.go does not perform any authentication or authorization checks. Unlike all other data-returning API endpoints, it does not call auth.UserFromApiCall or checkDashboardAccess. When AuthRequireGuestsToLogin is enabled (the security-conscious configuration), this endpoint remains accessible to unauthenticated users and can be used as an oracle to enumerate valid action binding IDs and their argument configurations. This issue has been fixed in version 3000.13.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-48708 | 1 Olivetin | 1 Olivetin | 2026-06-24 | 7.5 High |
| OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. In versions 3000.0.0 and prior, the template engine uses a single shared text/template.Template instance (tpl package-level variable in service/internal/tpl/templates.go) across all goroutines. Every action execution calls tpl.Parse(source) followed by t.Execute() on this shared instance with no synchronization. When two or more actions execute concurrently (which is the normal case — each ExecRequest spawns a goroutine), a race condition occurs: one goroutine's Parse overwrites the template tree while another goroutine is calling Execute, causing cross-user command contamination, Go runtime panic, and incorrect command execution. This issue has been resolved in version 3000.13.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-13164 | 1 Mailerup | 1 Mailerup | 2026-06-24 | N/A |
| Missing Authentication for Critical Function (CWE-306) in the RegisterView (apps/accounts/views.py), exposed at POST /api/auth/register/, in MailerUp <1.0.1 allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to self-register a working account on instances where registration is intended to be restricted, because the endpoint applies the AllowAny permission with no email verification, CAPTCHA, or administrator approval. Any account created this way can read all email stored by the instance, resulting in full disclosure of stored messages to an arbitrary unauthenticated attacker | ||||
| CVE-2026-54905 | 2026-06-24 | N/A | ||
| concurrent-ruby is a modern concurrency tools for Ruby. Prior to 1.3.7, Concurrent::ReentrantReadWriteLock can incorrectly grant a write lock after one thread acquires the read lock 32,768 times. The lock stores a thread's local read and write hold counts in one integer. The low 15 bits are used for the read hold count, and bit 15 is used as WRITE_LOCK_HELD. After 32,768 reentrant read acquisitions, the local read count crosses into the write-lock bit. try_write_lock then treats the thread as already holding a write lock and returns true without setting the global RUNNING_WRITER bit. This breaks the core mutual-exclusion guarantee: the caller is told it has a write lock, but other threads can still hold or acquire read locks at the same time. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.3.7. | ||||
| CVE-2026-5419 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 3.7 Low |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. The PKCS#7 padding check, performed during decryption, was not constant-time. This timing side-channel could allow a remote attacker to potentially leak sensitive information about the padding bytes through observable timing differences. This vulnerability is a form of information disclosure. | ||||
| CVE-2026-3832 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 3.7 Low |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by presenting a specially crafted Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) response during a TLS handshake. Due to a logic error in how gnutls processes multi-record OCSP responses, a client with OCSP verification enabled may incorrectly accept a revoked server certificate, potentially leading to a compromise of trust. | ||||
| CVE-2026-42015 | 1 Redhat | 8 Discovery, Enterprise Linux, Enterprise Linux Eus and 5 more | 2026-06-24 | 5.3 Medium |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. An off-by-one error exists in the PKCS#12 bag element bounds check. This vulnerability allows an remote attacker to write past the internal array of a PKCS#12 bag when appending to a bag that already contains 32 elements. This memory corruption could lead to a denial of service (DoS) or potentially other unspecified impacts. | ||||
| CVE-2026-42013 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 8.2 High |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. When validating certificates, an oversized Subject Alternative Name (SAN) could cause the validation process to incorrectly fall back to checking the Common Name (CN) field. This could allow a remote attacker to bypass proper certificate validation, potentially leading to spoofing or man-in-the-middle attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2026-42014 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 6.6 Medium |
| A flaw was found in GnuTLS. The `gnutls_pkcs11_token_set_pin` function, used for changing the Security Officer PIN, can lead to a use-after-free vulnerability. This occurs when an attacker attempts to change the PIN with a NULL old PIN for a token that lacks a protected authentication path. | ||||
| CVE-2026-42012 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 7.1 High |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by presenting a specially crafted certificate that contains Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or Service (SRV) Subject Alternative Names (SANs). This could cause the certificate validation process to incorrectly fall back to checking DNS hostnames against the Common Name (CN), potentially allowing the attacker to spoof legitimate services or intercept sensitive information. | ||||
| CVE-2026-42011 | 1 Redhat | 8 Discovery, Enterprise Linux, Enterprise Linux Eus and 5 more | 2026-06-24 | 7.4 High |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. This vulnerability occurs because permitted name constraints were incorrectly ignored when previous Certificate Authorities (CAs) only had excluded name constraints. A remote attacker could exploit this to bypass critical name constraint checks during certificate validation. This bypass could lead to the acceptance of invalid certificates, potentially enabling spoofing or man-in-the-middle attacks against affected systems. | ||||
| CVE-2026-5260 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 8.2 High |
| A flaw was found in libgnutls. A remote attacker, by sending an extremely short premaster secret during an RSA key exchange to a server using an RSA key backed by a PKCS#11 token, could trigger a short heap overread. This memory corruption vulnerability could lead to information disclosure. | ||||
| CVE-2026-3833 | 2 Gnu, Redhat | 9 Gnutls, Discovery, Enterprise Linux and 6 more | 2026-06-24 | 6.5 Medium |
| A flaw was found in gnutls. This vulnerability occurs because gnutls performs case-sensitive comparisons of `nameConstraints` labels, specifically for `dNSName` (DNS) or `rfc822Name` (email) constraints within `excludedSubtrees` or `permittedSubtrees`. A remote attacker can exploit this by crafting a leaf certificate with casing differences in the Subject Alternative Name (SAN), leading to a policy bypass where a certificate that should be rejected is instead accepted. This could result in unauthorized access or information disclosure. | ||||