Export limit exceeded: 402907 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (402907 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-73278 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-07 | N/A |
| Gitea's OAuth2 and OpenID Connect sign-in paths do not require a WebAuthn challenge when WebAuthn is the account's only configured second factor. A party able to authenticate through the affected external identity flow can obtain a full session without the passkey verification enforced during password login. One affected path can also persist an external identity link, extending the compromise beyond the initial session; accounts with TOTP configured are outside the reported WebAuthn-only scenario. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93443 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 7.5 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in code. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93448 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93445 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of generation of code. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93675 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an expected dependency confusion. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93678 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 7.6 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper authorization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93679 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 4.3 Medium |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption during ZIP file extraction. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93674 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97671 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to a path traversal vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97674 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection'), aka improper control of code generation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97678 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper input validation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97679 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('Code Injection') related to improper input validation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-97655 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 8.8 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to an incomplete blocklist in the code security scanner. | ||||
| CVE-2026-101329 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper access control. | ||||
| CVE-2026-101331 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 7.7 High |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to insufficiently protected credentials. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104334 | 1 Ibm | 1 Langflow Oss | 2026-10-06 | 9.8 Critical |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper control of code generation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106439 | 2026-10-06 | 7.8 High | ||
| Hydra is a framework for elegantly configuring complex applications. From 1.3.4 until 1.3.7 and 1.4.0.dev10, Hydra stores legacy instantiate target blocklists and related execution-policy collections in mutable module-level state. An attacker who controls multiple sibling target entries can resolve hydra._internal.target_policy.UNCONTROLLED_EXECUTION_TARGETS.discard through instantiate(), remove a denied target, and then invoke that target because sibling nodes are processed in insertion order against the same modified policy. The mutation persists in process-global state and can enable code execution with the application's privileges, while a narrow execution whitelist supplied by trusted Python code is not bypassed by the reported direct mutation path. This issue is fixed in versions 1.3.7 and 1.4.0.dev10. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106498 | 2026-10-06 | 7.7 High | ||
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 3.5.1, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.9.1, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend package is affected by improper url validation in catalog entity placeholder resolution. An authenticated Backstage user could craft a catalog entity with placeholder directives that reference resources outside the entity's source repository. Under certain configurations, this could allow access to data not intended to be available to the user. This issue is fixed in versions 3.5.1, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.9.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104636 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-10-06 | N/A |
| Gitea validated the initial remote URL for push mirrors, wiki remote checks, and fetches of migrated pull request heads, but the subsequent raw Git operations followed HTTP redirects without revalidating the destination. A repository administrator using a policy-allowed endpoint that redirects could make Gitea's Git client send requests to an address that the outbound host policy would otherwise block. The impact depends on the configured policy and the internal services reachable from the server. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102410 | 1 Elastic | 1 Kibana | 2026-10-06 | 4.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization (CWE-862) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). An internal API surface within the Metrics Experience feature did not enforce a Kibana-level authorization check that an equivalent, related API in the same feature did enforce. As a result, a user who held only data-store-level read access to an index, but no corresponding Kibana feature privilege, could retrieve index-derived metric data through Kibana that the properly-authorized API would otherwise have blocked. | ||||