Export limit exceeded: 412836 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (412836 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-78116 | 2026-10-21 | 5.2 Medium | ||
| The Broadcom AFBR-S50 time-of-flight sensor driver double-completes an RTIO submission when sensor data evaluation fails. In data_ready_work_handler() (drivers/sensor/broadcom/afbr_s50/afbr_s50.c), a non-STATUS_OK return from Argus_EvaluateData() calls handle_error_on_result(), which finalises the request with rtio_iodev_sqe_err(), but execution then fell through to the tail of the function and finalised the very same struct rtio_iodev_sqe a second time with rtio_iodev_sqe_ok(). Unlike the other error branches in the same function, this one did not return. Both completion helpers reach rtio_executor_done() in subsys/rtio/rtio_executor.c, which returns the submission to the pool via rtio_sqe_pool_free() and, for streaming (multishot) submissions, also releases the RX buffer with rtio_release_buffer(). The second completion therefore reads a freed rtio_iodev_sqe, pushes the same mpsc node onto the submission queue while it is already on the pool free list — splicing the two lists together — and re-submits the freed request so the next measurement is written through an already-released buffer. For one-shot submissions it emits a spurious success completion carrying stale userdata and frees the same pool entry twice. The failure branch is driven by sensor conditions rather than by host software. The vendor API documents statuses such as ERROR_ARGUS_BIAS_VOLTAGE_REINIT and ERROR_ARGUS_LASER_MONITOR_INACTIVE as transient results of harsh ambient light, so a party in front of the optical sensor can provoke the invalid-data condition without any physical contact with the board or any software access; SPI transfer errors reach the same branch. In releases before the payload.Status check was dropped, ordinary sharp distance transitions in the sensor's field of view were sufficient. Impact is corruption of the RTIO submission pool and mempool bookkeeping: aliased submissions, writes through released buffers, and duplicate completions delivered to the application. The attacker does not control the corrupted content, so the practical consequence is memory corruption and loss of availability on devices that instantiate brcm,afbr-s50, rather than directed code execution. Only builds that enable this driver are affected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-19676 | 2026-10-21 | 7.8 High | ||
| The user-mode verifier for the peci_transfer() system call, z_vrfy_peci_transfer() in drivers/peci/peci_handlers.c, checked only the device object permission and copied the caller-supplied struct peci_msg with k_usermode_from_copy(). That copy validates the outer structure only; the buf pointers and len values inside the embedded struct peci_buf members tx_buffer and rx_buffer remained fully caller-controlled and were passed unchecked to the driver. Every in-tree PECI driver dereferences those pointers in supervisor mode: peci_npcx_transfer() in drivers/peci/peci_npcx.c and peci_it8xxx2_transfer() in drivers/peci/peci_ite_it8xxx2.c copy hardware bytes into rx_buffer.buf[i] and read command bytes out of tx_buffer.buf[i], and peci_xec_read()/peci_xec_write() in drivers/peci/peci_mchp_xec.c do the same with no bound on rx_buffer.len at all. A user-mode thread that has been granted the PECI device object — the normal way an application exposes a device under CONFIG_USERSPACE — could therefore point rx_buffer.buf at kernel data structures and have the driver write hardware-supplied bytes there, or point tx_buffer.buf at kernel memory and have its contents pushed onto the PECI/eSPI out-of-band bus. The impact is a full user-mode-to-kernel escape: an arbitrary kernel write primitive (integrity and, through it, code execution at supervisor privilege), an arbitrary kernel read disclosed to a PECI bus observer, and a trivially reachable supervisor-mode fault if an unmapped address is supplied. Exploitation requires CONFIG_USERSPACE=y, one of the PECI drivers enabled (CONFIG_PECI_NPCX, CONFIG_PECI_XEC or CONFIG_PECI_ITE_IT8XXX2), and local code execution in a user-mode thread holding the PECI device. The fix adds K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_READ() and K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE() checks over the two embedded buffers, with a size_add_overflow() guard on the frame-check-sequence byte accounted for in the RX length. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105945 | 2026-10-21 | N/A | ||
| The Pulsar Packages Management Service can be configured to store packages on the local filesystem of the broker by using the filesystem storage provider. Package names consist of a type, tenant, namespace, name and version. Authorization of package operations is based only on the tenant and namespace, while the storage location of a package is derived from all of these components. The version component of a package name was not validated, so it could contain URL-encoded path separators and parent directory references. The filesystem storage provider resolved such a version to a location belonging to a package in a different tenant or namespace. Because that location is inside the configured storage directory, the containment check that the filesystem storage provider performs in recent releases did not prevent the access. An authenticated user who has the packages permission on any namespace could use this to download, overwrite or delete packages stored in other tenants or namespaces for which the user has no permission. Packages overwritten or deleted in this way may be used by Pulsar Functions, Sources or Sinks, so the issue can affect the integrity and availability of these components. If authentication is disabled, the operations are available to any client that can reach the broker's admin REST API. This issue only affects deployments in which package management is enabled with the broker setting enablePackagesManagement and the filesystem storage provider (FileSystemPackagesStorageProvider) is configured with the setting packagesManagementStorageProvider. Package management is disabled by default, and the default storage provider, which stores packages in Apache BookKeeper, is not affected. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.10.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5. - 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14. - 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions. The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105944 | 2026-10-21 | N/A | ||
| Apache Pulsar Manager is a web console for administering Apache Pulsar clusters. It has its own user accounts and login, and it can be configured with an HTTP authentication credential, such as a token, that it uses to call the Pulsar admin API on behalf of its users. Pulsar Manager has the following security issues: - The operation for creating the initial administrator (superuser) account is available without authentication, and it remains available after the instance has been initialized. Anyone who can reach Pulsar Manager can create an additional administrator account at any time and log in with it. This issue affects versions 0.3.0 and later. - Requests to the Pulsar admin API that Pulsar Manager proxies to the configured Pulsar cluster are not subject to Pulsar Manager's authentication. Version 0.2.0 checks the caller's permissions for some of these requests, but not for all of them. An unauthenticated user can therefore use Pulsar Manager to send requests to the Pulsar admin API, which the cluster processes with the credential configured in Pulsar Manager. - The destination of a proxied request can be chosen by the requester, and Pulsar Manager attaches its configured Pulsar admin credential to the request. An unauthenticated user can make Pulsar Manager send this credential to a host of the user's choosing, and the credential can then be used directly against the Pulsar cluster. - In versions 0.3.0 and later, Pulsar Manager does not distinguish between privilege levels of its accounts. Every account, including one created through the first issue, effectively has full administrative privileges in Pulsar Manager. The impact depends on the version and the deployment. In versions 0.3.0 and later, any user who can reach Pulsar Manager over the network can take full control of Pulsar Manager. In all versions, when Pulsar Manager is configured with an HTTP authentication credential for a Pulsar cluster, any user who can reach Pulsar Manager can perform the Pulsar admin operations that this credential permits and can obtain the credential itself. When Pulsar Manager is configured with the token signing key of a Pulsar cluster, an administrator of Pulsar Manager can create tokens for the cluster. Apache Pulsar Manager is no longer maintained and is completely unsupported. The Apache Pulsar PMC has retired it. There are no supported versions, and no further releases, fixes or security updates will be made for any version. These issues will not be fixed. Using Pulsar Manager is not recommended. Users should stop using Pulsar Manager, remove existing deployments, and move to one of the alternatives described in the Administration UI documentation (https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/administration-ui). Users who have exposed Pulsar Manager configured with a Pulsar credential or token signing key should also consider replacing that credential or key. Until a deployment is removed, users should not expose Pulsar Manager to untrusted networks, and should restrict network access to it to trusted administrators. | ||||
| CVE-2026-101469 | 1 Oracle | 1 Product Lifecycle Analytics | 2026-10-21 | 7.5 High |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle Product Lifecycle Analytics product of Oracle Supply Chain (component: Installation Issues). The supported version that is affected is 3.6.1. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via SQL to compromise Oracle Product Lifecycle Analytics. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle Product Lifecycle Analytics. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). | ||||
| CVE-2026-101463 | 1 Oracle | 1 Siebel Crm End User | 2026-10-21 | 7.5 High |
| Vulnerability in the Siebel CRM End User product of Oracle Siebel CRM (component: UIF Open UI). Supported versions that are affected are 17.0-26.9. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Siebel CRM End User. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Siebel CRM End User accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-101461 | 1 Oracle | 1 Siebel Crm Deployment | 2026-10-21 | 7.5 High |
| Vulnerability in the Siebel CRM Deployment product of Oracle Siebel CRM (component: Server Infrastructure). Supported versions that are affected are 17.0-26.9. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Siebel CRM Deployment. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Siebel CRM Deployment accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-106574 | 1 Imagemagick | 1 Imagemagick | 2026-10-21 | 5.3 Medium |
| ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to 7.1.2-31, a client connected to the distributed pixel cache server can send crafted pixel data that triggers an integer-size calculation error and a heap buffer overwrite, crashing the server. This issue is fixed in version 7.1.2-31. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114266 | 1 Projectworlds | 1 Advanced Library Management System | 2026-10-21 | 6.3 Medium |
| A security vulnerability has been detected in ProjectWorlds Advanced Library Management System 1.0. This impacts the function mysqli_query of the file profile.php. The manipulation of the argument admin_id leads to sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91208 | 1 Oracle | 1 Solaris | 2026-10-21 | 5.1 Medium |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle Solaris product of Oracle Systems (component: Services). The supported version that is affected is 11.4. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle Solaris executes to compromise Oracle Solaris. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized ability to cause a hang or frequently repeatable crash (complete DOS) of Oracle Solaris. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.1 (Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H). | ||||
| CVE-2026-102499 | 2026-10-21 | 7.7 High | ||
| The Modern Events Calendar Lite WordPress plugin before 7.37.0, Modern Event Calendar Pro WordPress plugin before 7.37.0 do not sanitise and escape a parameter before using it in a SQL statement, which allows authenticated users with Subscriber-level access and above to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries and extract sensitive data from the database. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106932 | 2026-10-21 | 6.5 Medium | ||
| The Moloni WordPress plugin before 5.0.14 does not perform capability or nonce checks on several of its authenticated AJAX actions, relying only on whether the site holds a stored connection to its external invoicing provider, allowing any authenticated user such as a Subscriber to generate fiscal invoices for arbitrary orders, discard arbitrary orders, and create or modify products and stock. | ||||
| CVE-2026-108073 | 2026-10-21 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The SureCart WordPress plugin before 4.9.5 does not restrict which related objects an anonymous visitor may include when reading a single upsell funnel through its REST API, nor strip private fields from those objects, allowing unauthenticated users to read merchant-private catalog data such as pricing, commission, stock, SKU and tax internals, including unpublished products. | ||||
| CVE-2026-111949 | 2026-10-21 | 7.5 High | ||
| The miniOrange 2FA WordPress plugin before 6.3.1 does not prevent a pending passkey login from registering an additional passkey on an account that already has one configured, allowing an attacker who knows a user's password to add their own authenticator and bypass the second factor. | ||||
| CVE-2026-111956 | 2026-10-21 | 5.9 Medium | ||
| The WholesaleX WordPress plugin before 3.0.9 does not protect or remove the user-import file it keeps in a publicly accessible location under a predictable name, allowing unauthenticated users to download the most recently imported user data, including any account passwords and customer contact and address details it contains. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104642 | 2026-10-21 | 2.7 Low | ||
| The Simple Shopping Cart WordPress plugin before 5.3.3 does not verify submitted product prices against a value only the site owner can set, allowing users with the Contributor role and above to register attacker-chosen prices for existing products, which any visitor can then use to add those products to the cart at that price. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105256 | 2026-10-21 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The LatePoint WordPress plugin before 5.7.5 does not validate the client-supplied value that determines how much is charged for a booking against the amounts the service and site actually allow, allowing an unauthenticated visitor to make the amount due resolve to zero and obtain a confirmed appointment and a recorded order without completing any payment. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105942 | 2026-10-21 | N/A | ||
| When a configured proxy role sends a request to the broker on behalf of another user (the original principal), the broker is designed to authorize both the proxy role and the original principal and to allow the request only if both are authorized, so that the original principal cannot exceed its own permissions. Two flaws weakened this check. First, the original principal was authorized with the proxy's authentication data instead of its own. On the admin REST API of the broker and the functions worker, this applied to every proxied request. On the Pulsar binary protocol, it applied when the proxy did not forward the client's credentials to the broker, which was the default of the Pulsar proxy in the affected versions. Authorization providers that resolve permissions from the role name only, such as the default authorization provider, are not affected by this flaw. The multi-role token authorization provider (MultiRolesTokenAuthorizationProvider), added in Apache Pulsar 2.8.1, resolves roles from the role claim of the token in the authentication data it is given. When a proxy authenticates to the broker with its own token, the original principal was therefore authorized with all roles in the proxy's token. If any of those roles is a superuser or tenant admin role, any user whose requests are forwarded by that proxy can perform operations that need those permissions without holding them. Custom authorization providers that use the authentication data could be affected in a similar way. Second, independently of the authorization provider, the tenant admin check of a proxied admin REST API request succeeded without checking the original principal when the proxy role was itself an admin role of the tenant. In deployments where a proxy role is a tenant admin, including with the default authorization provider, any user whose requests are forwarded by that proxy could perform tenant administration operations on that tenant. This behavior is present from 2.8.4 in the 2.8.x releases, from 2.9.3 in the 2.9.x releases, and from 2.10.1 onwards. Deployments that use neither the multi-role token authorization provider nor a custom provider that uses the authentication data are not affected by the first flaw, and with the multi-role token authorization provider, neither are deployments whose proxies do not authenticate to the broker with a token. Deployments in which no proxy role is listed as an admin role of a tenant are not affected by the second flaw. A proxy role that is a superuser but is not listed as a tenant admin does not trigger it, because the tenant admin check of the built-in authorization providers only considers the tenant's admin roles; this can differ for custom authorization providers that treat superusers as tenant admins. In fixed versions, both the proxy role and the original principal are authorized for each proxied request, and the original principal is authorized only with its own authentication data. With the multi-role token authorization provider, the roles of a forwarded token are used for the original principal only when that token authenticates as the original principal; otherwise only the original principal's role name is used. For tenant admin checks, the proxy role and the original principal must each be a superuser or a tenant admin of the tenant. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.8.1 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5. - 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14. - 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions. The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105938 | 2026-10-21 | N/A | ||
| Apache Pulsar namespaces can restrict which roles may use a subscription, either with the Prefix subscription authentication mode, which requires a subscription name to start with the role name, or by granting permission on a subscription to specific roles. Topic-level subscription operations, such as consuming, skipping messages, resetting a cursor or deleting a subscription, apply these subscription policies. Several admin REST API operations that act on subscriptions did not apply them: - the namespace-level and bundle-level clear backlog operations, both for a named subscription and for all subscriptions; - the namespace-level and bundle-level unsubscribe operations; - the topic-level operation that expires messages for all subscriptions of a topic. With the default authorization provider, the namespace-level operations require only consume permission granted on the namespace, and the expire-all operation requires only consume permission on the topic. As a result, when authentication and authorization are enabled and a namespace uses the Prefix subscription authentication mode or subscription permissions, an authenticated user with such consume permission can clear the backlog of, expire messages of, or delete a subscription that the policies would deny to that user. Tenant admin or superuser access is not required. The clear backlog operations can also be applied to the cursors used for geo-replication, so that messages not yet replicated to a remote cluster are skipped. Deployments that do not configure the Prefix subscription authentication mode or subscription permissions (the defaults) are not affected by this bypass, because consume permission on the namespace or topic already allows these operations there. This impact analysis assumes that Pulsar has been configured with the default authorization provider. For custom authorization providers, the impact could be different. The impact is on the integrity of subscription state. Clearing or expiring the backlog moves the subscription's cursor forward, so unacknowledged messages are no longer delivered to the subscription's consumers. The unsubscribe operation deletes a subscription that has no connected consumers. Skipped messages can be permanently deleted once no other subscription or the namespace's retention policy keeps them. The issue does not allow reading message contents, changing permissions or policies, or accessing other namespaces, and it does not affect the availability of the broker. In fixed versions, the namespace-level and bundle-level operations for a named subscription apply the subscription policies to that subscription, and the operations for all subscriptions, when requested by a user who is not a tenant admin or superuser, only act on the subscriptions that the user may access. Clearing the backlog of geo-replication cursors requires tenant admin or superuser access. Topic-level subscription operations apply the subscription policies for all types of authentication data, including that of the anonymous user role. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 2.8.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5. - 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14. - 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5. All brokers in a cluster must be upgraded before relying on the namespace-level restrictions, because brokers that have not been upgraded do not apply them when they receive the internal per-bundle requests. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions. The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/. Users who cannot upgrade immediately can reduce exposure by restricting network access to the broker's admin REST API to trusted administrative clients. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105937 | 2026-10-21 | N/A | ||
| Apache Pulsar shadow topics (PIP-180) are topics that read the stored messages of a source topic from that topic's managed ledger. The source topic is selected by setting the reserved topic property PULSAR.SHADOW_SOURCE. The admin REST API accepts this property when creating a non-partitioned or partitioned topic and when updating the properties of an existing topic. On these paths the broker authorizes the caller only against the topic being created or updated. It does not authorize the caller against the source topic named in the property. The existing authorization for shadow topic configuration (the SHADOW_TOPIC topic policy on the source topic) is applied only to the source-side shadow topics admin API, not to these paths. As a result, an authenticated user who is allowed to create topics or update topic properties in one tenant can bind a topic in that tenant to a persistent topic in any other tenant. With the default authorization provider, these operations require the tenant admin role for the user's own tenant. The user does not need any permission on the source topic, its namespace or its tenant. This impact analysis assumes that Pulsar has been configured with the default authorization provider. For custom authorization providers, the impact could be different. The user can then consume from the shadow topic, using only permissions on their own topic, and receive retained messages that were published to the source topic in the other tenant. Exposure is limited to messages that are still retained and readable in the source topic's ledgers; messages protected with client-side end-to-end encryption cannot be decrypted without the encryption keys. A producer on the shadow topic can also register a new schema version under the source topic's schema, subject to the schema compatibility settings; existing schema versions are not replaced. In addition, the shadow topic's managed ledger applies its own retention, trimming, offloading and deletion to the source topic's ledgers. This can permanently delete the source topic's ledger data from BookKeeper and from tiered storage, regardless of the source topic's own subscriptions and retention policy, including messages that have not yet been acknowledged. Deleting the shadow topic can also delete the source topic's ledgers. This data loss can also affect shadow topics that were configured intentionally by administrators. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 3.0.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5. Apache Pulsar 2.x releases do not contain the shadow topic implementation. - 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14. - 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions. The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/. In the fixed versions, shadow topics are disabled by default and are controlled by the new broker configuration setting enableShadowTopics (default false). While it is disabled, the broker rejects creating shadow topics, setting the PULSAR.SHADOW_SOURCE property, and loading or replicating to existing shadow topics. Deployments that use shadow topics must set enableShadowTopics=true in the broker configuration of all brokers after upgrading; otherwise existing shadow topics will not be loaded. When shadow topics are enabled, binding a shadow topic to a source topic in a different tenant requires the superuser role. The fixed versions also prevent a shadow topic from deleting or trimming the ledgers and offloaded data of its source topic. Affected versions provide no configuration option to disable shadow topics. Users who cannot upgrade immediately can reduce exposure by granting the tenant admin role only to trusted principals. | ||||