Export limit exceeded: 16578 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (16578 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-93786 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-10-03 | 8.1 High |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: preserve VFS inherited POSIX ACL mask The VFS initializes a child's POSIX ACL from the parent's default ACL and the requested creation mode. Do not mutate the parent ACL or overwrite the child's VFS-computed access and default ACLs afterwards. This preserves restrictive ACL_MASK entries and prevents SMB object creation from widening effective permissions. | ||||
| CVE-2026-71885 | 1 Legion Of The Bouncy Castle Inc. | 1 Bc-java | 2026-10-03 | N/A |
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the Messaging Layer Security (MLS, RFC 9420) implementation did not bind an X.509 credential to a LeafNode's signature_key. LeafNode.verify() checked a leaf's signature against the signature_key carried in the leaf itself, while the credential's X.509 certificate chain was stored but never parsed or validated, so the end-entity certificate's public key was never required to match signature_key as RFC 9420 sec. 5.3 requires. A party could therefore present another party's certificate as its credential while signing the leaf, and the enclosing KeyPackage, with an unrelated key, and be accepted under that other party's identity through KeyPackage.verify() and the Group leaf-validation path. In a deployment that admits external commits without an independent credential-admission check, an unauthenticated attacker could be admitted under a victim's X.509 identity, evict the victim (resynchronization compares whole credentials rather than signing keys), derive the current epoch, decrypt subsequent group messages, and send messages accepted as the victim. TreeKEM.LeafNode now requires the end-entity certificate's subject public key, in the cipher suite's signature encoding, to equal signature_key for an X.509 credential and rejects the leaf otherwise, including an empty chain or a certificate whose key type does not match the cipher suite; certificate-chain and identity validation to a trust anchor remain the application's responsibility per RFC 9420 sec. 5.3.1. Deployments using only basic credentials are unaffected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-71886 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP certificate API accepted a third-party certification or trust delegation from any component key of the issuing certificate, without requiring that component to have been granted the authority to certify. OpenPGPCertificate.getCertificationBy() and getDelegationBy() resolve a third-party signature by matching its issuer key identifier against every key of the third-party certificate, then verify the issuing component's binding chain and the signature itself; nothing checked that the issuing component carried the RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29 certification key flag (CERTIFY_OTHER) when the signature was created. A subkey bound only with SIGN_DATA - the online signing subkey of exactly the offline-primary arrangement those key flags exist to express - could therefore issue a positive User ID certification over an attacker-controlled identity, or a full-trust depth-one direct-key delegation of introducer trust, and the API returned it as a valid signature chain attributed to the third-party certificate. An application treating getCertificationBy(...).isValid() or getDelegationBy(...) as an identity or trusted-introducer decision would attribute the attacker's assertion to the offline primary key. The same held for a legacy RSA subkey bound only for encryption, whose algorithm is nonetheless able to sign. This does not forge the primary key's signature or recover any private key; it promotes an already-compromised restricted subkey to the primary key's identity-issuing authority, defeating the containment the key-flag separation provides. A third-party certification or delegation is now attributed to the issuing certificate only when the component key that made it is the primary key, or is a subkey holding CERTIFY_OTHER when the signature was created, so certification-capable subkeys continue to be accepted; primary keys are accepted whatever their key flags say, since a primary key is certification-capable by construction and certificates carrying no key flags subpacket at all are common. Third-party revocations are deliberately outside the rule, since declining to honour one would keep trust alive rather than withdraw it. | ||||
| CVE-2026-103293 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| The MPG WordPress plugin before 4.2.3 does not validate that the dataset source supplied when importing a project is a remote URL before treating it as a local filesystem path and copying that file into a publicly accessible uploads folder. This makes it possible for users with the Editor role and above to read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, with the copied file then retrievable by unauthenticated visitors. | ||||
| CVE-2026-80518 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| The WP Ultimate CSV Importer WordPress plugin before 9.2 does not use a site-specific secret when deriving the storage location of the import logs it writes under the uploads directory, nor does it block direct access to them, allowing unauthenticated attackers to retrieve the personal data of users imported from a CSV file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-86832 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| The MetForm WordPress plugin before 4.3.1 does not properly restrict access to form submission data, allowing unauthenticated attackers to view submitter information through the REST API. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91078 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| The TillKit WordPress plugin before 1.0.5 does not require the hard-coded, publicly known PIN of the privileged POS account it creates on activation to be changed before use, and it authenticates its public POS login endpoint on that PIN alone with no identity or capability check, allowing unauthenticated attackers to obtain a privileged POS session and thereby read customer and site-user personal data and modify store data. | ||||
| CVE-2026-92437 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| The Mailchimp for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 6.3 does not require authentication, a nonce or an ownership check before it acts on a customer's abandoned-cart record identified from request-supplied data, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to modify or delete another customer's stored cart. | ||||
| CVE-2026-96962 | 2026-10-03 | N/A | ||
| The Pie Register WordPress plugin before 3.8.4.14 does not restrict access to an invitation-code report, allowing unauthenticated visitors who know a valid invitation code to obtain the username and email address of every user who registered with that code. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97343 | 2026-10-03 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| The Burst Statistics – Simple WordPress Analytics (Google Analytics Alternative) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Authentication leading to Account Persistence in all versions up to, and including, 3.7.1. This is due to the `maybe_load_shared_dashboard()` handler issuing a genuine WordPress session cookie for the `burst_statistics_viewer` account to any visitor presenting a valid share token via `wp_set_auth_cookie()`, while the plugin only blocks Application Passwords for the resulting `burst_viewer` role and does not restrict the core `/wp-json/wp/v2/users/me` password update endpoint or filter the `edit_user` capability for that account — leaving WordPress core's built-in rule that any authenticated user may update their own account fully in effect. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to set an attacker-chosen password on the `burst_statistics_viewer` WordPress account, constituting a permanent takeover of that limited-privilege (`view_burst_statistics`) account that persists through share-token revocation, share-token expiration, and execution of the plugin's daily `cleanup_viewer_sessions()` routine. Exploitation requires that the attacker have obtained a valid `burst_share_token`, such as one that has been shared publicly or distributed to an untrusted party. | ||||
| CVE-2026-51899 | 1 Transformeroptimus | 1 Superagi | 2026-10-02 | 4.3 Medium |
| In SuperAGI v0.0.14 and prior, controller endpoints (/api/agents/create, /api/agents/schedule, /api/agents/delete, /api/agents/edit_schedule, /api/agents/stop_schedule) allow authenticated users from one organization to create, schedule, edit, stop, and delete agents belonging to a different organization's project. The endpoints accept a project_id parameter but do not verify that the project belongs to the authenticated user's organization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-20267 | 1 Cisco | 2 Ios Xe, Ios Xe Software | 2026-10-02 | 9 Critical |
| As part of Cisco's ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, the Cisco IOS XE Software engineering team has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in software hardening releases that address multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-20267 are related to improper access control issues that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Pillar CWE-284. | ||||
| CVE-2026-51916 | 1 Transformeroptimus | 1 Superagi | 2026-10-02 | 7.5 High |
| TransformerOptimus SuperAGI v0.0.14 contains an incorrect access control vulnerability in delete_user_knowledge in superagi/controllers/knowledges.py. In affected source snapshots, POST /knowledges/delete/{knowledge_id} deletes the selected knowledge object without requiring authentication in the route and without verifying organization ownership of the supplied knowledge_id. | ||||
| CVE-2020-8664 | 2 Envoyproxy, Redhat | 2 Envoy, Service Mesh | 2026-10-02 | 5.3 Medium |
| CNCF Envoy through 1.13.0 has incorrect Access Control when using SDS with Combined Validation Context. Using the same secret (e.g. trusted CA) across many resources together with the combined validation context could lead to the “static” part of the validation context to be not applied, even though it was visible in the active config dump. | ||||
| CVE-2026-51895 | 1 Infiniflow | 1 Ragflow | 2026-10-02 | 6.5 Medium |
| Ragflow 0.24.0 and prior contains improper access control in update_metadata_setting (api/apps/kb_app.py). Depending on the exposed entry, an attacker can perform unauthorized cross-session or privilege-crossing operations. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102795 | 1 Apache | 1 Traffic Server | 2026-10-02 | 9.3 Critical |
| Improper Access Control vulnerability in Apache Traffic Server. This issue affects Apache Traffic Server: from 9.0.0 through 9.2.14, from 10.0.0 through 10.1.3. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 9.2.15 or 10.1.4, which fixes the issue. This CVE supersedes CVE-2026-41920, whose record listed the affected 9.x versions as 9.0.0 through 9.1.14 and the fixed version as 9.1.15. All 9.2.x releases before 9.2.15 are affected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-100261 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Youtrack | 2026-10-02 | 5.4 Medium |
| In JetBrains YouTrack before 2026.2.18991 changing article visibility settings was possible without update permission | ||||
| CVE-2026-88920 | 1 Apache | 1 Wss4j | 2026-10-02 | 9.8 Critical |
| An authentication bypass in the DOM security processor in Apache WSS4J allows unauthenticated remote attackers to forge authenticated SOAP messages via a crafted unsigned SAML sender-vouches assertion containing an attacker-controlled key. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.0.2 or 3.0.6 or 2.4.4, which fix this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-21140 | 1 Samsung Mobile | 1 Samsung Mobile Devices | 2026-10-02 | N/A |
| Improper access control in ManagedProvisioning prior to SMR Sep-2026 Release 1 allows local attackers to install arbitrary applications. | ||||
| CVE-2026-51915 | 2026-10-02 | N/A | ||
| TransformerOptimus SuperAGI v0.0.14 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control in the tool controller. In affected source snapshots, get_tool and update_tool in superagi/controllers/tool.py accept a caller-supplied tool_id and fail to verify organization ownership through the associated toolkit. A remote authenticated attacker from one organization can read or modify another organization's tool metadata through /tools/get/{tool_id} and /tools/update/{tool_id}. | ||||