Export limit exceeded: 402959 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (402959 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-106494 | 2026-10-07 | 4.4 Medium | ||
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.17.8, the @backstage/backend-defaults package is affected by improper input validation in cloud storage url readers. An attacker with write access to a cloud storage bucket used by Backstage could craft object names that could collide with protected files in the output directory. In certain deployment configurations, this could lead to content injection. This issue is fixed in version 0.17.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106443 | 1 Kozea | 1 Weasyprint | 2026-10-07 | 8.8 High |
| WeasyPrint helps web developers to create PDF documents. Prior to 70.0, the image-loading path in weasyprint/images.py passes fetched image bytes from HTML img URLs, CSS image values, SVG image references, and data URIs to Pillow's generic image dispatcher without excluding EPS or PostScript formats. On hosts with Ghostscript installed, Pillow EpsImagePlugin invokes the interpreter for attacker-controlled PostScript, which can produce interpreter-permitted effects and can lead to remote code execution when the installed Ghostscript version has a usable sandbox bypass. Hosts without Ghostscript do not reach this rasterization path. This issue is fixed in version 70.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106460 | 2026-10-07 | 6.8 Medium | ||
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.3.0 until 0.6.15 and 0.7.5, the @backstage/plugin-auth-node package did not consistently honor explicit negative email verification during shared OAuth profile normalization. The affected paths include a selected profile email marked verified: false, a matching raw provider email marked email_verified: false, and an email obtained only from an ID token marked email_verified: false. Exploitation requires an admitted identity-provider user who can supply or change an unverified email and a deployment that uses the selected profile email to resolve catalog identities. The verification metadata must apply to the selected email; an absent email_verified claim alone is not affected. In an affected configuration, the user may assume another catalog identity and obtain its associated access and permissions. This issue is fixed in versions 0.6.15 and 0.7.5. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106492 | 2026-10-07 | 7.6 High | ||
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.16.1 and 0.17.8, the @backstage/backend-defaults package is affected by improper preservation of access restrictions during service credential delegation. An external service credential configured with access restrictions (e.g., read-only) could bypass those restrictions by routing requests through plugin delegation paths. This could allow a restricted service to perform operations beyond its intended scope, including write operations on plugins it was restricted to read-only access for. This issue is fixed in versions 0.16.1 and 0.17.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106585 | 1 Openbsd | 1 Openssh | 2026-10-07 | 6.5 Medium |
| In sshd and ssh in OpenSSH before 10.6, there is no check for whether the maximum packet length is exceeded during decompression of highly compressed data. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106586 | 1 Openbsd | 1 Openssh | 2026-10-07 | 2.5 Low |
| In sshd in OpenSSH before 10.6, the restrict keyword (in authorized_keys) was supposed to be applicable to tunnel forwarding but was not, a different vulnerability than CVE-2026-73283. | ||||
| 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. | ||||