Export limit exceeded: 395549 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 395549 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (395549 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-92622 | 2026-09-18 | 6.4 Medium | ||
| The Strong Testimonials plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via 'lightbox_class' Shortcode Attribute in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.8 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. Exploitation requires that the targeted testimonial view has at least one published testimonial with a featured image and the lightbox wrapper enabled, as the vulnerable code path is only reached when a thumbnail is rendered. | ||||
| CVE-2026-92599 | 1 Hapijs | 1 Joi | 2026-09-18 | 7.5 High |
| joi (npm package `joi`, hapi.js) versions >=17.2.0 <17.13.7 and >=18.0.0 <18.2.6 are vulnerable to regular expression denial of service in the `Joi.string().isoDate()` validation rule. One of the regular expressions the rule applies to the input is unanchored, so a valid ISO date followed by a long run of fractional-second digits causes the regex engine to restart its search from every position in the string, yielding time proportional to the square of the input length (about 1.4 s for 64 KB of digits and about 22 s for 256 KB). A remote attacker who can supply a string to an isoDate validation can stall the application with a single request. Fixed in 17.13.7 and 18.2.6; as a workaround, cap the length of the string before it reaches joi. | ||||
| CVE-2026-92594 | 1 Craftcms | 1 Craft Cms | 2026-09-18 | 7.5 High |
| Craft CMS 5.0.0-RC1 through versions before 5.11.0 incorrectly authorize the GraphQL draftCreator and revisionCreator fields: instead of requiring the user-data scope enforced by Gql::canQueryUsers() (usergroups.*:read), these fields are gated only on the elements.drafts:read / elements.revisions:read scopes, and their resolver returns a raw User element whose email, username, fullName, and addresses fields have no per-field authorization. A client holding only the drafts or revisions scope — including an unauthenticated client when the operator has enabled the public GraphQL schema with those scopes — can therefore harvest the email addresses, usernames, full names, and postal addresses of all draft/revision creators (typically site editors and administrators). The issue is fixed in 5.11.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-91202 | 1 Redhat | 1 Enterprise Linux | 2026-09-18 | 6.1 Medium |
| A flaw was found in cockpit-files. A low-privileged local user can exploit this vulnerability by crafting a directory containing a symbolic link (symlink) and then using the privileged "Paste as owner" function. This allows for arbitrary file ownership changes outside the intended pasted directory, leading to a compromise of data integrity. In some cases, this could also lead to reduced confidentiality if the new ownership grants unauthorized read access. Exploitation requires user interaction to select a non-original owner during the paste operation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-85652 | 2026-09-18 | 6.5 Medium | ||
| The Photo Gallery by 10Web – Mobile-Friendly Image Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to time-based SQL Injection via 'album_id' Shortcode Attribute in all versions up to, and including, 1.8.44 due to insufficient escaping on the user supplied parameter and lack of sufficient preparation on the existing SQL query. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with author-level access and above, to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database. An Author-level user can store a SQL injection payload inside a published post's shortcode attribute, causing the payload to execute when any visitor renders the post; notably, the unsanitized value appears on both sides of a UNION query, potentially doubling the observable time-based delay. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84241 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper authorization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84239 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 7.6 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84108 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of input during web page generation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84105 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 7.7 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84089 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 7.8 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a local attacker to gain elevated privileges due to improper privilege management. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84086 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 7.2 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84085 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary OS commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84083 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 7.8 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 is vulnerable to local privilege escalation via the SUID-root nmap_wrapper binary on the Collector appliance. A local attacker with low-privileged access to the Collector can exploit insufficient argument validation in the SUID binary to execute arbitrary commands as root, resulting in full compromise of the Collector appliance. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84082 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 9.8 Critical |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84081 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 8.1 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper certificate validation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84078 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 9.9 Critical |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 is vulnerable to a missing authentication vulnerability in the LoadBalancerServlet. An unauthenticated user can access privileged load-balancer operations, potentially resulting in unauthorized actions and impact to the integrity and availability of the affected system. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84076 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 7.6 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper authorization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84075 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 9.9 Critical |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to missing authentication for the ChangeTrackerServlet. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84074 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 8.9 High |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of input during web page generation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84073 | 1 Ibm | 1 Guardium Data Protection | 2026-09-18 | 9.1 Critical |
| IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an SQL command. | ||||