Search

Search Results (338544 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2026-2923 1 Gstreamer 1 Gstreamer 2026-03-17 7.8 High
GStreamer DVB Subtitles Out-Of-Bounds Write Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of GStreamer. Interaction with this library is required to exploit this vulnerability but attack vectors may vary depending on the implementation. The specific flaw exists within the handling of coordinates. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in a write past the end of an allocated buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-28838.
CVE-2024-0552 1 Intumit 1 Smartrobot 2026-03-17 9.8 Critical
Intumit inc. SmartRobot's web framwork has a remote code execution vulnerability. An unauthorized remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands on the remote server.
CVE-2026-3081 1 Gstreamer 1 Gstreamer 2026-03-17 7.8 High
GStreamer H.266 Codec Parser Stack-based Buffer Overflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of GStreamer. Interaction with this library is required to exploit this vulnerability but attack vectors may vary depending on the implementation. The specific flaw exists within the parsing of decoding units. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of the length of user-supplied data prior to copying it to a fixed-length stack-based buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-28839.
CVE-2026-28430 1 Chamilo 1 Chamilo Lms 2026-03-17 9.8 Critical
Chamilo LMS is a learning management system. Prior to version 1.11.34, there is an unauthenticated SQL injection vulnerability which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the custom_dates parameter. By chaining this with a predictable legacy password reset mechanism, an attacker can achieve full administrative account takeover without any prior credentials. The vulnerability also exposes the entire database, including PII and system configurations. This issue has been patched in version 1.11.34.
CVE-2026-30875 1 Chamilo 1 Chamilo Lms 2026-03-17 8.8 High
Chamilo LMS is a learning management system. Prior to version 1.11.36, an arbitrary file upload vulnerability in the H5P Import feature allows authenticated users with Teacher role to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE). The H5P package validation only checks if h5p.json exists but doesn't block .htaccess or PHP files with alternative extensions. An attacker uploads a crafted H5P package containing a webshell and .htaccess that enables PHP execution for .txt files, bypassing security control. This issue has been patched in version 1.11.36.
CVE-2026-30876 1 Chamilo 1 Chamilo Lms 2026-03-17 5.3 Medium
Chamilo LMS is a learning management system. Prior to version 1.11.36, Chamilo is vulnerable to user enumeration with valid/invalid username. This issue has been patched in version 1.11.36.
CVE-2026-30881 1 Chamilo 1 Chamilo Lms 2026-03-17 8.8 High
Chamilo LMS is a learning management system. Version 1.11.34 and prior contains a SQL Injection vulnerability in the statistics AJAX endpoint. The parameters date_start and date_end from $_REQUEST are embedded directly into a raw SQL string without proper sanitization. Although Database::escape_string() is called downstream, its output is immediately neutralized by str_replace("\'", "'", ...), which restores any injected single quotes — effectively bypassing the escaping mechanism entirely. This allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary SQL statements into the database query, enabling blind time-based and conditional data extraction. This issue has been patched in version 1.11.36.
CVE-2026-30882 1 Chamilo 1 Chamilo Lms 2026-03-17 6.1 Medium
Chamilo LMS is a learning management system. Chamilo LMS version 1.11.34 and prior contains a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the session category listing page. The keyword parameter from $_REQUEST is echoed directly into an HTML href attribute without any encoding or sanitization. An attacker can inject arbitrary HTML/JavaScript by breaking out of the attribute context using ">followed by a malicious payload. The vulnerability is triggered when the pagination controls are rendered — which occurs when the number of session categories exceeds 20 (the page limit). This issue has been patched in version 1.11.36.
CVE-2026-3824 1 Wellchoose 2 Iftop, Organization Portal System 2026-03-17 6.1 Medium
IFTOP developed by WellChoose has an Open redirect vulnerability, allowing authenticated remote attackers to craft a URL that tricks users into visiting malicious website.
CVE-2026-28343 1 Ckeditor 1 Ckeditor5 2026-03-17 6.4 Medium
CKEditor 5 is a modern JavaScript rich-text editor with an MVC architecture. Prior to version 47.6.0, a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been discovered in the General HTML Support feature. This vulnerability could be triggered by inserting specially crafted markup, leading to unauthorized JavaScript code execution, if the editor instance used an unsafe General HTML Support configuration. This issue has been patched in version 47.6.0.
CVE-2026-22723 1 Cloudfoundry 3 Cf-deployment, Uaa, Uaa-release 2026-03-17 6.5 Medium
Inappropriate user token revocation due to a logic error in the token revocation endpoint implementation in Cloudfoundry UAA v77.30.0 to v78.7.0 and in Cloudfoundry Deployment v48.7.0 to v54.10.0.
CVE-2026-28413 1 Plone 1 Isurlinportal 2026-03-17 5.3 Medium
Products.isurlinportal is a replacement for isURLInPortal method in Plone. Prior to versions 2.1.0, 3.1.0, and 4.0.0, a url /login?came_from=////evil.example may redirect to an external website after login. This issue has been patched in versions 2.1.0, 3.1.0, and 4.0.0.
CVE-2026-21622 2 Hexpm, Sixcolors 2 Hexpm, Hexpm 2026-03-17 9.8 Critical
Insufficient Session Expiration vulnerability in hexpm hexpm/hexpm ('Elixir.Hexpm.Accounts.PasswordReset' module) allows Account Takeover. Password reset tokens generated via the "Reset your password" flow do not expire. When a user requests a password reset, Hex sends an email containing a reset link with a token. This token remains valid indefinitely until used. There is no time-based expiration enforced. If a user's historical emails are exposed through a data breach (e.g., a leaked mailbox archive), any unused password reset email contained in that dataset could be used by an attacker to reset the victim's password. The attacker does not need current access to the victim's email account, only access to a previously leaked copy of the reset email. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/hexpm/accounts/password_reset.ex and program routines 'Elixir.Hexpm.Accounts.PasswordReset':can_reset?/3. This issue affects hexpm: from 617e44c71f1dd9043870205f371d375c5c4d886d before bb0e42091995945deef10556f58d046a52eb7884.
CVE-2026-4276 1 Librechat 1 Rag Api 2026-03-17 7.5 High
LibreChat RAG API, version 0.7.0, contains a log-injection vulnerability that allows attackers to forge log entries.
CVE-2026-32398 2 Subratamal, Wordpress 2 Terawallet For Woocommerce, Wordpress 2026-03-17 5.3 Medium
Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') vulnerability in Subrata Mal TeraWallet – For WooCommerce woo-wallet allows Leveraging Race Conditions.This issue affects TeraWallet – For WooCommerce: from n/a through <= 1.5.15.
CVE-2026-2673 1 Openssl 1 Openssl 2026-03-17 7.5 High
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-2025-0665 3 Curl, Haxx, Netapp 15 Curl, Libcurl, Curl and 12 more 2026-03-17 7 High
libcurl would wrongly close the same eventfd file descriptor twice when taking down a connection channel after having completed a threaded name resolve.
CVE-2026-32594 2 Parse Community, Parseplatform 2 Parse Server, Parse-server 2026-03-17 7.3 High
Parse Server is an open source backend that can be deployed to any infrastructure that can run Node.js. Prior to 8.6.40 and 9.6.0-alpha.14, the GraphQL WebSocket endpoint for subscriptions does not pass requests through the Express middleware chain that enforces authentication, introspection control, and query complexity limits. An attacker can connect to the WebSocket endpoint and execute GraphQL operations without providing a valid application or API key, access the GraphQL schema via introspection even when public introspection is disabled, and send arbitrarily complex queries that bypass configured complexity limits. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.6.40 and 9.6.0-alpha.14.
CVE-2026-28477 1 Openclaw 1 Openclaw 2026-03-17 7.1 High
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.14 contain an oauth state validation bypass vulnerability in the manual Chutes login flow that allows attackers to bypass CSRF protection. An attacker can convince a user to paste attacker-controlled OAuth callback data, enabling credential substitution and token persistence for unauthorized accounts.
CVE-2026-28478 1 Openclaw 1 Openclaw 2026-03-17 7.5 High
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.13 contain a denial of service vulnerability in webhook handlers that buffer request bodies without strict byte or time limits. Remote unauthenticated attackers can send oversized JSON payloads or slow uploads to webhook endpoints causing memory pressure and availability degradation.