Export limit exceeded: 403228 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (403228 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-70611 | 2 Electron, Electronjs | 2 Electron, Electron | 2026-10-08 | 6.9 Medium |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.9, 40.9.2, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3, the DevTools reveal in file manager action could launch the target file rather than reveal it. An attacker with a separate means of running script inside the DevTools frontend, such as a malicious DevTools extension, could use showItemInFolder handling to execute native code outside the sandbox when DevTools is opened for windows exposed to untrusted content or untrusted DevTools extensions. This issue is fixed in 39.8.9, 40.9.2, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91797 | 3 Foxit, Foxitsoftware, Microsoft | 5 Pdf Editor, Pdf Reader, Foxit Pdf Editor and 2 more | 2026-10-08 | 7.8 High |
| Foxit PDF Editor/Reader failed to validate the directory traversal path in the attachment file name, resulting in malicious attachments being able to be written to directories outside the expected secure area when the PDF is opened. | ||||
| CVE-2026-15781 | 1 Ibm | 4 Datapower Gateway 1050, Datapower Gateway 1060, Datapower Gateway 106cd and 1 more | 2026-10-08 | 8 High |
| IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a buffer overflow. | ||||
| CVE-2026-56851 | 2026-10-08 | 7.5 High | ||
| The Nickname profile can panic with an out-of-bounds slice error when transforming crafted input into a short destination buffer. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91796 | 3 Foxit, Foxitsoftware, Microsoft | 5 Pdf Editor, Pdf Reader, Foxit Pdf Editor and 2 more | 2026-10-08 | 6.1 Medium |
| The interface of Foxit PDF Editor/Reader lacks the permission verification for secure reading mode, which allows specially crafted PDFs to trigger external SMB authentication without any security prompts and thereby leak the hash of the user's credentials. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70612 | 2 Electron, Electronjs | 2 Electron, Electron | 2026-10-08 | 5.4 Medium |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3, requests to open external protocol URLs from web content did not take iframe sandbox restrictions into account, so a sandboxed iframe could cause an OS-registered external application to be launched. The frame sandbox state was also not made available to the app permission handlers, affecting apps that render untrusted content in sandboxed iframes and grant the openExternal permission by default when no setPermissionRequestHandler is installed. This issue is fixed in 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91795 | 3 Foxit, Foxitsoftware, Microsoft | 5 Pdf Editor, Pdf Reader, Foxit Pdf Editor and 2 more | 2026-10-08 | 7.8 High |
| Foxit PDF Editor/Reader's FileOpen plugin did not adequately validate certain encryption metadata in specially crafted PDF files. This could leave an internal pointer in an invalid state, resulting in chained read and write access violations and potentially enabling arbitrary code execution. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91793 | 3 Foxit, Foxitsoftware, Microsoft | 5 Pdf Editor, Pdf Reader, Foxit Pdf Editor and 2 more | 2026-10-08 | 7.8 High |
| When opening a specially crafted PDF, Foxit PDF Editor/Reader executes scripts that modify annotation rich-text attributes containing malformed font data. During subsequent annotation appearance reconstruction, it accesses an object after it has been released, resulting in a use-after-free condition and an application crash. | ||||
| CVE-2026-70597 | 2 Electron, Electronjs | 2 Electron, Electron | 2026-10-08 | 6.3 Medium |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3, the check Electron uses on macOS to confirm it was launched by a same-signed parent process could be bypassed by a local process. Apps that enable fuse-based hardening restricting ELECTRON_RUN_AS_NODE and NODE_OPTIONS to same-signed parents rely on this check, and a local attacker could bypass it and run code inside the signed app, inheriting its TCC permissions and keychain access. This issue is fixed in 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-17635 | 2 Ibm, Redhat | 3 Financial Transaction Manager, Financial Transaction Manager Ftmfor Redhat Openshift, Openshift | 2026-10-08 | 9.1 Critical |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote attacker to perform unauthorized actions due to improper configuration of HTTP method-based security constraints. | ||||
| CVE-2026-87668 | 1 Brocade | 1 Fabric Os | 2026-10-08 | N/A |
| A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the diagnostic execution utility of Brocade Fabric OS versions before 10.0.1. When processing command arguments for diagnostic operations, the utility tokenizes user-supplied input into an internal argument array without enforcing boundary checks on the maximum array capacity. An authenticated user with administrative access can exploit this vulnerability by supplying a crafted diagnostic command string containing an excessive number of tokenized arguments. This leads to a memory overwrite resulting in a denial of service (process crash). | ||||
| CVE-2026-17636 | 2 Ibm, Redhat | 4 Financial Transaction Manager, Financial Transaction Manager (ftm) for Redhat Openshift, Financial Transaction Manager Ftmfor Redhat Openshift and 1 more | 2026-10-08 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of a specified quantity. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102135 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 6.6 Medium |
| On a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway cluster with database replication enabled, a party trusted by the cluster could submit a crafted serialized object that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing code execution as the gateway service account. Replication is disabled by default, and exploitation requires control of a trusted cluster peer or administrative access to the appliance. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102133 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Core | 2026-10-08 | 6.6 Medium |
| An optional, separately licensed repository-connector feature in Kiteworks Core did not neutralize special characters in a user-supplied path before passing it to an external command. An authenticated system administrator could inject additional commands and write arbitrary content to files owned by the service account running the connector, enabling code execution in that account's context; exploitation additionally requires network egress from the appliance to a system under the attacker's control. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105260 | 2026-10-08 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| The Database Addon For WPForms ( wpforms entries ) WordPress plugin before 1.1.1 does not verify the CSRF nonce when the field is omitted and performs no capability check of its own, allowing attackers to delete arbitrary stored form entries by tricking a logged-in administrator into loading a crafted page. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102131 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code execution as the gateway service account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102130 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102129 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Core | 2026-10-08 | 7.2 High |
| A user-provisioning interface in Kiteworks Core did not verify that the requesting administrator was entitled to grant the role being assigned. An administrator whose delegated permissions covered role changes alone could therefore raise an account to full system-administrator privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102128 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7.5 High |
| An identity-verification weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed the gateway to act on the Kiteworks platform on behalf of a user it had not authenticated, and to provision a platform account for an identity it did not already know. A remote, unauthenticated sender could potentially exploit this to obtain control of a platform account. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102127 | 2 Accellion, Kiteworks | 2 Kiteworks, Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway | 2026-10-08 | 7 High |
| An XML parser used by Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not restrict external entity references. Where an optional, non-default message-processing feature is enabled, a remote and unauthenticated sender could potentially use a crafted message to read files accessible to the gateway service account, including cryptographic key material and credentials, and have them sent to a destination they control. | ||||