Export limit exceeded: 412883 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (412883 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-109431 | 1 Camunda | 1 Camunda 7 | 2026-10-19 | 8.1 High |
| Camunda 7.24.0 before 7.24.14 and 7.23.0 before 7.23.17 contains a missing authorization check vulnerability in engine-rest task sub-resources that allows authenticated attackers with no permission grants to access task comments and attachments by calling singular read and delete endpoints that lack the authorization-filtered checks enforced on their corresponding list endpoints. Attackers can exploit TaskAttachmentResourceImpl and TaskCommentResourceImpl methods such as getAttachment, getAttachmentData, deleteAttachment, and getComment using only a known object ID to read, download, or permanently delete task attachments and comments. | ||||
| CVE-2026-109432 | 1 Camunda | 1 Camunda 7 | 2026-10-19 | 9.8 Critical |
| Camunda 7.24.0 before 7.24.14 and 7.23.0 before 7.23.17 contains an expression injection vulnerability where AdhocQueryValidator.validate() fails to check sub-query expression maps within the orQueries field exposed by TaskQueryDto, allowing authenticated users to bypass the enableExpressionsInAdhocQueries restriction. Attackers can supply a malicious JUEL expression such as dueAfterExpression inside an orQueries entry to achieve arbitrary Java reflection and invoke java.lang.Runtime.exec, resulting in operating-system command execution as the engine service user. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107567 | 1 Progressive Robot | 1 Hmailserver | 2026-10-19 | 7.5 High |
| Use of a less trusted source in the DKIM signing of Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to have mail they write signed with the DKIM key of a domain the server hosts, so that it passes DKIM and DMARC for that domain at other receivers. With DKIM signing enabled for a hosted domain, the server signed every message on its first delivery pass as the domain named in its From header, before local delivery, whatever the message's origin and without checking that its sender had authenticated. A sender anywhere could therefore send the server, as ordinary inbound mail, a message whose From is any address at such a domain, and the server signed it with that domain's key. Every copy the server then sent on to an address outside carried a valid signature aligned with the forged From, whatever the domain's DMARC policy: an account's forward, a mail rule's forward or copy, a Sieve redirect, an alias or distribution list with an outside member, the mirror copy, a managed-list or journal copy, or a message released from quarantine. A signed copy can also be re-sent to other recipients while the domain's key is unchanged. Exploitation needs DKIM signing to be enabled for the hosted domain (it is off until configured) and, for the forgery to leave the server, a forward, alias, list or rule that carries the domain's mail to an outside address. The signer likewise signed a message submitted over authenticated SMTP as whatever hosted domain its From header named, a header authenticated SMTP does not hold to the submitting account, so that an account of one hosted domain could have mail written in the name of another hosted domain signed with that domain's key; this mattered where the server holds signed-in senders to their own envelope addresses (SmtpAuthenticatedSenderCheck, off by default), as the signature was then the remaining way for such mail to pass the other domain's DMARC policy. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107568 | 1 Progressive Robot | 1 Hmailserver | 2026-10-19 | 6.5 Medium |
| Missing authorization in the Sieve notify action (6.2.22 through 6.3.6) and in the mail-rule Reply action (6.0.0 through 6.3.6) of Progressive Robot hMailServer allows an authenticated user to send mail through the server as any address. A Sieve notify sends a notification message, and its :from tag names the sender; the server set the notification's From header to that :from as the script wrote it, without checking that the address belongs to the account - the check that the Sieve vacation action applies to its own :from, and that the server applies to the sender of mail queued over COM or sent from the webmail. An account that can store a Sieve script (over ManageSieve, the REST API's self-service filter, or the administration interface) could therefore have the server send a notification from any address, on this server or anywhere; and where the claimed address is at a domain the server hosts with DKIM signing enabled, the server signed the notification with that domain's DKIM key, because it signs by the From header's domain, producing forged mail aligned to pass the domain's DMARC policy. The notify action and this behaviour were introduced in 6.2.22. In the mail-rule engine, a rule's Reply was likewise sent from whatever address the action named, whoever the rule belonged to, so that an account acting on its own rules over COM, a domain administrator, or an API key confined to a domain (over the REST API from 6.3.4) could have a domain's or an account's rule reply from any address, signed, where that address is at a domain the server hosts with DKIM signing enabled, with that domain's key. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107566 | 1 Progressive Robot | 1 Hmailserver | 2026-10-19 | 6.5 Medium |
| Missing authorization in the Sieve editheader action (6.2.22 through 6.3.6) and in the mail-rule Set header value action (6.0.0 through 6.3.6) of Progressive Robot hMailServer allows an authenticated user to make the server send mail as any address, DKIM-signed where the address is at a domain the server signs for. A Sieve script's editheader (addheader/deleteheader) could add or delete any header field except Received and Return-Path, and the server applies a script's header edits before it queues a redirect, so the redirected copy is sent as the script left it. The server signs a message's first delivery pass as the domain named in its From header wherever it signs DKIM for that domain and the message carries no signature of it. A script could therefore delete and re-add From - another account's address, or anyone's at a hosted domain - and redirect, so the server sent the message in that name and, for a hosted domain, signed it with that domain's DKIM key, a forgery aligned to pass the domain's DMARC; or, where another sender's domain is one the server signs for, delete the DKIM-Signature that sender's message arrived with, alter a field, and redirect, so the server re-signed the altered message as that sender's domain. editheader placed no restriction on From, Sender, Resent-From, Resent-Sender or DKIM-Signature. The editheader action was introduced in 6.2.22. In the mail-rule engine, a domain's or an account's rule's Set header value action could likewise set From, Sender, Resent-From, Resent-Sender or DKIM-Signature ahead of a forward or a copy, whoever the rule belonged to, so that an account acting on its own rules over COM, a domain administrator, or an API key confined to a domain (over the REST API from 6.3.4) could have the server forward or copy a message in the name of any address, signed, where that address is at a domain the server hosts with DKIM signing enabled, with that domain's key. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107569 | 1 Progressive Robot | 1 Hmailserver | 2026-10-19 | 7.5 High |
| Unchecked input for a loop condition in Progressive Robot hMailServer 6.0.0 through 6.3.6 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to stop the server carrying mail. The server bounds the mail it generates in response to a message - a rule forward, reply or copy, an account forward, a Sieve redirect, vacation or notify, a bounce, an out-of-office reply - by a counter it carries in the message's X-hMailServer-LoopCount header, and makes no more once the counter reaches the configured rule loop limit (5 by default); that is what ends a forwarding or auto-reply cycle in a bounded number of hops. X-hMailServer-LoopCount is an ordinary header that is not stripped from mail arriving from outside, and the server read it with a signed conversion and no validation, so a count below zero passed every test against the limit: a sender who sets X-hMailServer-LoopCount to a negative value, or on the Linux builds to a value above the 32-bit signed range that the conversion wraps to a negative one, lifts the bound, and a message that enters a generated-mail cycle then loops up to about two thousand million times, each hop a queued message and a delivery, filling the queue and disk and stopping mail service. The Sieve notify action (from 6.2.22) consulted no limit at all, and its increment of the count could overflow a signed integer; and an account could reset the counter on its own mail through a Sieve editheader of the header (from 6.2.22) or a rule Set header value action (all versions) ahead of a forward or redirect. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107187 | 1 Eptura | 1 Archibus | 2026-10-19 | 8.5 High |
| A user can access any database details, such as usernames and passwords by sending a DWR request with a specified workflow rule. The authentication bypass vulnerability can be chained with this vulnerability to perform database reads without authentication. Database write and delete operations may also be possible, but this was untested. | ||||
| CVE-2026-68198 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-10-19 | 8.8 High |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: ath6kl: fix use-after-free in aggr_reset_state() The aggr_reset_state() function uses timer_delete() (non-synchronous) for the aggregation timer before proceeding to delete TID state and before the structure is freed by callers like aggr_module_destroy(). If the timer callback (aggr_timeout) is executing when aggr_reset_state() is called, the callback will continue to access aggr_conn fields like rx_tid[] and stat[] which may be freed immediately after by kfree(aggr_info->aggr_conn) in aggr_module_destroy(). Additionally, the timer callback can re-arm itself via mod_timer() while aggr_reset_state() is running, creating a more complex race condition. Use timer_delete_sync() instead to ensure any running timer callback has completed before returning. | ||||
| CVE-2026-4413 | 1 Ibm | 1 Concert | 2026-10-19 | 6.1 Medium |
| IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. | ||||
| CVE-2026-1510 | 1 Ibm | 1 Concert | 2026-10-19 | 4.7 Medium |
| IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Information Disclosure via Heap Inspection. | ||||
| CVE-2026-1501 | 1 Ibm | 1 Concert | 2026-10-19 | 3.7 Low |
| IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Improper Certificate Validation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-13695 | 1 Integratec | 1 Integratec | 2026-10-19 | N/A |
| SQL injection (SQLi) vulnerability—specifically a UNION-based vulnerability—in the Integratec application that affects the sInfo parameter sent via POST to the endpoint /login/ap_Login.aspx/start. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to steal data from the database, such as credentials and user information, and cause errors and partial denial-of-service conditions. Furthermore, this vulnerability could facilitate other types of follow-up attacks, such as data exfiltration or privilege escalation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-12343 | 1 Ibm | 2 Mq Advanced Container Images, Mq Operator | 2026-10-19 | 6.5 Medium |
| IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper validation of RFH2 message header fields in queued publish/subscribe operations. | ||||
| CVE-2026-11828 | 1 Ibm | 2 Mq Advanced Container Images, Mq Operator | 2026-10-19 | 5.9 Medium |
| IBM MQ could allow a remote attacker with queue manager control or man-in-the-middle access on unencrypted channels to cause a denial of service in client applications using asynchronous message consumption due to improper validation of queue name length values. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112305 | 2026-10-19 | 8.8 High | ||
| Semaphore UI through 2.19.16 contains a remote code execution vulnerability that allows users with the task_runner role to override protected Ansible variables by supplying arbitrary keys in the task environment JSON. Attackers can POST tasks setting ansible_ssh_common_args with a ProxyCommand or ansible_connection=local to execute commands as the Semaphore server user, exposing encryption keys, SSH keys and stored secrets. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112192 | 1 Misp | 1 Misp | 2026-10-19 | N/A |
| MISP contains a vulnerability in the handling of module plugin settings. When the server rebuilds module-supplied settings for API consumption, it drops the redacted and cli_only flags that a module declares in its own configuration metadata. As a result: - A module that marks a setting (such as an API key) as redacted still has its value returned in full by the servers/getSetting and servers/serverSettingsEdit endpoints, exposing sensitive credentials to any authenticated user who can read server settings. - A module that marks a setting as cli_only (intended to be editable only via the command-line interface) can still be modified through the web API, bypassing the intended access restriction. An authenticated user with access to server settings can therefore read sensitive module credentials and modify settings that the module author intended to restrict to CLI-only access. Affected: <2.5.48 | ||||
| CVE-2026-112184 | 1 Misp | 1 Misp | 2026-10-19 | N/A |
| MISP contains a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the workflow module interface. Parameter names returned by the misp-modules service are rendered as raw HTML form labels on the workflow module page without output encoding. An attacker who can influence the parameter names reported by the misp-modules service can inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript that executes in the context of an authenticated MISP user's browser. Preconditions: - The attacker must be able to control or influence parameter names reported by the misp-modules service. - A victim must be authenticated and view the affected workflow module page. Impact: - Execution of arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session. - Potential theft of session tokens, manipulation of the MISP interface, or initiation of unauthorized actions on behalf of the victim. Affected versions: <2.5.48. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112183 | 1 Misp | 1 Misp | 2026-10-19 | N/A |
| MISP contains a CSS injection vulnerability in the remote event preview feature. When a user previews an event from a linked MISP server, the colour value associated with each remote tag is written directly into an inline CSS style attribute without sufficient validation. Although HTML entity encoding is applied, the value is interpreted as CSS within the style attribute, allowing a malicious or compromised linked server to inject arbitrary CSS declarations. An attacker with the ability to create or modify tags on a linked MISP instance can craft a tag colour value containing CSS injection payloads. When a user on the local instance views the event preview, the injected CSS is rendered, potentially allowing UI manipulation, visual spoofing, or limited information disclosure through CSS-based techniques. Preconditions: - A linked MISP server relationship exists between the victim instance and the attacker-controlled instance. - The attacker can create or modify tags on the linked server. - A victim user views the remote event preview page. Affected: <2.5.48. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112180 | 1 Misp | 1 Misp | 2026-10-19 | N/A |
| MISP contains a data integrity flaw in its event deletion logic. When a user deletes an event, several associated records are not removed from the database, leaving them as orphaned entries. The affected record types include event report tags, event graph entries, proposal (shadow attribute) correlations, fuzzy ssdeep correlation chunks, and attachment scan results. These orphaned records may contain sensitive threat intelligence data such as correlation mappings, scan results, and report metadata that should have been removed along with the parent event. Their persistence beyond the intended deletion lifecycle creates a risk of unintended data retention and potential information exposure if the records are reachable through other application queries or administrative interfaces. Preconditions: - An authenticated user with sufficient privileges to delete events in MISP. - The event must have associated reports, graphs, correlations, ssdeep chunks, or attachment scan results. Impact: - Residual sensitive data persists in the database after the parent event is deleted. - Accumulation of orphaned records over time may contribute to storage bloat. - Orphaned records may be inadvertently exposed through other data-access paths that do not validate the existence of the parent event. Affected versions: <2.5.48 | ||||
| CVE-2026-112178 | 1 Misp | 1 Misp | 2026-10-19 | N/A |
| MISP contains an access control flaw in the proposal (shadow attribute) visibility logic. The authorization check accepted any attribute or object carrying one of the user's sharing groups without verifying the distribution level, and denied the owning organisation access to proposals on its own organisation-only attributes. - A user belonging to a sharing group could view proposals on attributes or objects with that sharing group, regardless of the attribute's distribution level (levels 1-3 should restrict visibility) - The owning organisation could not view proposals on its own org-only attributes Security impact: Unauthorized disclosure of proposed attribute changes to users who should not have access based on distribution level restrictions. Affected: <2.5.48 | ||||