Export limit exceeded: 338285 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (338285 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-2673 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-03-16 | 3.1 Low |
| Issue summary: An OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server may fail to negotiate the expected preferred key exchange group when its key exchange group configuration includes the default by using the 'DEFAULT' keyword. Impact summary: A less preferred key exchange may be used even when a more preferred group is supported by both client and server, if the group was not included among the client's initial predicated keyshares. This will sometimes be the case with the new hybrid post-quantum groups, if the client chooses to defer their use until specifically requested by the server. If an OpenSSL TLS 1.3 server's configuration uses the 'DEFAULT' keyword to interpolate the built-in default group list into its own configuration, perhaps adding or removing specific elements, then an implementation defect causes the 'DEFAULT' list to lose its 'tuple' structure, and all server-supported groups were treated as a single sufficiently secure 'tuple', with the server not sending a Hello Retry Request (HRR) even when a group in a more preferred tuple was mutually supported. As a result, the client and server might fail to negotiate a mutually supported post-quantum key agreement group, such as 'X25519MLKEM768', if the client's configuration results in only 'classical' groups (such as 'X25519' being the only ones in the client's initial keyshare prediction). OpenSSL 3.5 and later support a new syntax for selecting the most preferred TLS 1.3 key agreement group on TLS servers. The old syntax had a single 'flat' list of groups, and treated all the supported groups as sufficiently secure. If any of the keyshares predicted by the client were supported by the server the most preferred among these was selected, even if other groups supported by the client, but not included in the list of predicted keyshares would have been more preferred, if included. The new syntax partitions the groups into distinct 'tuples' of roughly equivalent security. Within each tuple the most preferred group included among the client's predicted keyshares is chosen, but if the client supports a group from a more preferred tuple, but did not predict any corresponding keyshares, the server will ask the client to retry the ClientHello (by issuing a Hello Retry Request or HRR) with the most preferred mutually supported group. The above works as expected when the server's configuration uses the built-in default group list, or explicitly defines its own list by directly defining the various desired groups and group 'tuples'. No OpenSSL FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the code in question lies outside the FIPS boundary. OpenSSL 3.6 and 3.5 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.2 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.6 once it is released. OpenSSL 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 1.0.2 and 1.1.1 are not affected by this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-32306 | 1 Oneuptime | 1 Oneuptime | 2026-03-16 | 10 Critical |
| OneUptime is a solution for monitoring and managing online services. Prior to 10.0.23, the telemetry aggregation API accepts user-controlled aggregationType, aggregateColumnName, and aggregationTimestampColumnName parameters and interpolates them directly into ClickHouse SQL queries via the .append() method (documented as "trusted SQL"). There is no allowlist, no parameterized query binding, and no input validation. An authenticated user can inject arbitrary SQL into ClickHouse, enabling full database read (including telemetry data from all tenants), data modification, and potential remote code execution via ClickHouse table functions. This vulnerability is fixed in 10.0.23. | ||||
| CVE-2026-25818 | 1 Hms-networks | 2 Ewon Cosy, Ewon Flexy | 2026-03-16 | 9.1 Critical |
| HMS Networks Ewon Flexy with firmware before 15.0s4, Cosy+ with firmware 22.xx before 22.1s6, and Cosy+ with firmware 23.xx before 23.0s3 have weak entropy for authentication cookies, allowing an attacker with a stolen session cookie to find the user password by brute-forcing an encryption parameter. | ||||
| CVE-2026-25819 | 1 Hms-networks | 2 Ewon Cosy, Ewon Flexy | 2026-03-16 | 7.5 High |
| HMS Networks Ewon Flexy with firmware before 15.0s4, Cosy+ with firmware 22.xx before 22.1s6, and Cosy+ with firmware 23.xx before 23.0s3 allows unauthenticated attackers to cause a Denial of Service by using a specially crafted HTTP request that leads to a reboot of the device, provided they have access to the device's GUI. | ||||
| CVE-2026-30943 | 1 Forceu | 1 Gokapi | 2026-03-16 | 4.1 Medium |
| Gokapi is a self-hosted file sharing server with automatic expiration and encryption support. Prior to 2.2.4, An insufficient authorization check in the file replace API allows a user with only list visibility permission (UserPermListOtherUploads) to delete another user's file by abusing the deleteNewFile flag, bypassing the requirement for UserPermDeleteOtherUploads. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.2.4. | ||||
| CVE-2026-31798 | 1 Jumpserver | 1 Jumpserver | 2026-03-16 | 5 Medium |
| JumpServer is an open source bastion host and an operation and maintenance security audit system. Prior to v4.10.16-lts, JumpServer improperly validates certificates in the Custom SMS API Client. When JumpServer sends MFA/OTP codes via Custom SMS API, an attacker can intercept the request and capture the verification code BEFORE it reaches the user's phone. This vulnerability is fixed in v4.10.16-lts. | ||||
| CVE-2026-31882 | 1 Dagu-org | 1 Dagu | 2026-03-16 | 7.5 High |
| Dagu is a workflow engine with a built-in Web user interface. Prior to 2.2.4, when Dagu is configured with HTTP Basic authentication (DAGU_AUTH_MODE=basic), all Server-Sent Events (SSE) endpoints are accessible without any credentials. This allows unauthenticated attackers to access real-time DAG execution data, workflow configurations, execution logs, and queue status — bypassing the authentication that protects the REST API. The buildStreamAuthOptions() function builds authentication options for SSE/streaming endpoints. When the auth mode is basic, it returns an auth.Options struct with BasicAuthEnabled: true but AuthRequired defaults to false (Go zero value). The authentication middleware at internal/service/frontend/auth/middleware.go allows unauthenticated requests when AuthRequired is false. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.2.4. | ||||
| CVE-2026-31919 | 2 Josh Kohlbach, Wordpress | 2 Advanced Coupons For Woocommerce Coupons, Wordpress | 2026-03-16 | 4.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Josh Kohlbach Advanced Coupons for WooCommerce Coupons advanced-coupons-for-woocommerce-free allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Advanced Coupons for WooCommerce Coupons: from n/a through <= 4.7.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-32328 | 2 Shufflehound, Wordpress | 2 Lemmony, Wordpress | 2026-03-16 | 5.4 Medium |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in shufflehound Lemmony lemmony allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Lemmony: from n/a through < 1.7.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-0956 | 1 Digilent | 1 Dasylab | 2026-03-16 | 7.8 High |
| There is a memory corruption vulnerability due to an out-of-bounds read when loading a corrupted file in Digilent DASYLab. This vulnerability may result in information disclosure or arbitrary code execution. Successful exploitation requires an attacker to get a user to open a specially crafted file. This vulnerability affects all versions of Digilent DASYLab. | ||||
| CVE-2025-13718 | 1 Ibm | 1 Sterling Partner Engagement Manager | 2026-03-16 | 3.7 Low |
| IBM Sterling Partner Engagement Manager 6.2.3.0 through 6.2.3.5 and 6.2.4.0 through 6.2.4.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors. | ||||
| CVE-2025-13726 | 1 Ibm | 1 Sterling Partner Engagement Manager | 2026-03-16 | 5.3 Medium |
| IBM Sterling Partner Engagement Manager 6.2.3.0 through 6.2.3.5 and 6.2.4.0 through 6.2.4.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information when detailed technical error messages are returned. This information could be used in further attacks against the system. | ||||
| CVE-2026-0835 | 1 Ibm | 1 Sterling B2b Integrator | 2026-03-16 | 5.4 Medium |
| IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_2, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5_1, 6.2.1.0 through 6.2.1.1_1, and 6.2.2.0 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an authenticated user to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. | ||||
| CVE-2023-40693 | 1 Ibm | 1 Sterling B2b Integrator | 2026-03-16 | 5.4 Medium |
| IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_2, and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5_1, 6.2.1.0 through 6.2.1.1_1 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. | ||||
| CVE-2025-13723 | 1 Ibm | 1 Sterling Partner Engagement Manager | 2026-03-16 | 5.3 Medium |
| IBM Sterling Partner Engagement Manager 6.2.3.0 through 6.2.3.5 and 6.2.4.0 through 6.2.4.2 could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive user information using an expired access token | ||||
| CVE-2025-13777 | 1 Abb | 2 Awin Gw100 Rev.2, Awin Gw120 | 2026-03-16 | 8.3 High |
| Authentication bypass by capture-replay vulnerability in ABB AWIN GW100 rev.2, ABB AWIN GW120.This issue affects AWIN GW100 rev.2: 2.0-0, 2.0-1; AWIN GW120: 1.2-0, 1.2-1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-36368 | 1 Ibm | 1 Sterling B2b Integrator | 2026-03-16 | 6.5 Medium |
| IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_2, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5_1, and 6.2.1.0 through 6.2.1.1_1 are vulnerable to SQL injection. An administrative user could send specially crafted SQL statements, which could allow the attacker to view, add, modify, or delete information in the back-end database. | ||||
| CVE-2026-0954 | 1 Digilent | 1 Dasylab | 2026-03-16 | 7.8 High |
| There is a memory corruption vulnerability due to an out-of-bounds write when loading a corrupted DSB file in Digilent DASYLab. This vulnerability may result in information disclosure or arbitrary code execution. Successful exploitation requires an attacker to get a user to open a specially crafted .DSB file. This vulnerability affects all versions of Digilent DASYLab. | ||||
| CVE-2026-23941 | 1 Erlang | 2 Erlang/otp, Erlang\/otp | 2026-03-16 | N/A |
| Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request Smuggling') vulnerability in Erlang OTP (inets httpd module) allows HTTP Request Smuggling. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/inets/src/http_server/httpd_request.erl and program routines httpd_request:parse_headers/7. The server does not reject or normalize duplicate Content-Length headers. The earliest Content-Length in the request is used for body parsing while common reverse proxies (nginx, Apache httpd, Envoy) honor the last Content-Length value. This violates RFC 9112 Section 6.3 and allows front-end/back-end desynchronization, leaving attacker-controlled bytes queued as the start of the next request. This issue affects OTP from OTP 17.0 until OTP 28.4.1, OTP 27.3.4.9 and OTP 26.2.5.18, corresponding to inets from 5.10 until 9.6.1, 9.3.2.3 and 9.1.0.5. | ||||
| CVE-2026-2890 | 2 Strategy11team, Wordpress | 2 Formidable Forms – Contact Form Plugin, Survey, Quiz, Payment, Calculator Form & Custom Form Builder, Wordpress | 2026-03-16 | 7.5 High |
| The Formidable Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to a payment integrity bypass in all versions up to, and including, 6.28. This is due to the Stripe Link return handler (`handle_one_time_stripe_link_return_url`) marking payment records as complete based solely on the Stripe PaymentIntent status without comparing the intent's charged amount against the expected payment amount, and the `verify_intent()` function validating only client secret ownership without binding intents to specific forms or actions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reuse a PaymentIntent from a completed low-value payment to mark a high-value payment as complete, effectively bypassing payment for goods or services. | ||||