Export limit exceeded: 420439 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (3219 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-24889 | 1 Nextcloud | 1 Nextcloud Server | 2025-04-22 | 2.4 Low |
| Nextcloud Server is the file server software for Nextcloud, a self-hosted productivity platform. Prior to versions 21.0.8, 22.2.4, and 23.0.1, it is possible to trick administrators into enabling "recommended" apps for the Nextcloud server that they do not need, thus expanding their attack surface unnecessarily. This issue is fixed in versions 21.0.8 , 22.2.4, and 23.0.1. | ||||
| CVE-2022-31053 | 2 Biscuitsec, Clever-cloud | 4 Biscuit-auth, Biscuit-go, Biscuit-haskell and 1 more | 2025-04-22 | 9.8 Critical |
| Biscuit is an authentication and authorization token for microservices architectures. The Biscuit specification version 1 contains a vulnerable algorithm that allows malicious actors to forge valid Γ-signatures. Such an attack would allow an attacker to create a token with any access level. The version 2 of the specification mandates a different algorithm than gamma signatures and as such is not affected by this vulnerability. The Biscuit implementations in Rust, Haskell, Go, Java and Javascript all have published versions following the v2 specification. There are no known workarounds for this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2022-31151 | 2 Nodejs, Redhat | 2 Undici, Acm | 2025-04-22 | 3.7 Low |
| Authorization headers are cleared on cross-origin redirect. However, cookie headers which are sensitive headers and are official headers found in the spec, remain uncleared. There are active users using cookie headers in undici. This may lead to accidental leakage of cookie to a 3rd-party site or a malicious attacker who can control the redirection target (ie. an open redirector) to leak the cookie to the 3rd party site. This was patched in v5.7.1. By default, this vulnerability is not exploitable. Do not enable redirections, i.e. `maxRedirections: 0` (the default). | ||||
| CVE-2022-35929 | 1 Sigstore | 1 Cosign | 2025-04-22 | 7.1 High |
| cosign is a container signing and verification utility. In versions prior to 1.10.1 cosign can report a false positive if any attestation exists. `cosign verify-attestation` used with the `--type` flag will report a false positive verification when there is at least one attestation with a valid signature and there are NO attestations of the type being verified (--type defaults to "custom"). This can happen when signing with a standard keypair and with "keyless" signing with Fulcio. This vulnerability can be reproduced with the `distroless.dev/static@sha256:dd7614b5a12bc4d617b223c588b4e0c833402b8f4991fb5702ea83afad1986e2` image. This image has a `vuln` attestation but not an `spdx` attestation. However, if you run `cosign verify-attestation --type=spdx` on this image, it incorrectly succeeds. This issue has been addressed in version 1.10.1 of cosign. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2022-36056 | 2 Redhat, Sigstore | 2 Advanced Cluster Security, Cosign | 2025-04-22 | 5.5 Medium |
| Cosign is a project under the sigstore organization which aims to make signatures invisible infrastructure. In versions prior to 1.12.0 a number of vulnerabilities have been found in cosign verify-blob, where Cosign would successfully verify an artifact when verification should have failed. First a cosign bundle can be crafted to successfully verify a blob even if the embedded rekorBundle does not reference the given signature. Second, when providing identity flags, the email and issuer of a certificate is not checked when verifying a Rekor bundle, and the GitHub Actions identity is never checked. Third, providing an invalid Rekor bundle without the experimental flag results in a successful verification. And fourth an invalid transparency log entry will result in immediate success for verification. Details and examples of these issues can be seen in the GHSA-8gw7-4j42-w388 advisory linked. Users are advised to upgrade to 1.12.0. There are no known workarounds for these issues. | ||||
| CVE-2024-26135 | 2 Meshcentral, Ylianst | 2 Meshcentral, Meshcentral | 2025-04-22 | 8.4 High |
| MeshCentral is a full computer management web site. Versions prior to 1.1.21 a cross-site websocket hijacking (CSWSH) vulnerability within the control.ashx endpoint. This component is the primary mechanism used within MeshCentral to perform administrative actions on the server. The vulnerability is exploitable when an attacker is able to convince a victim end-user to click on a malicious link to a page hosting an attacker-controlled site. The attacker can then originate a cross-site websocket connection using client-side JavaScript code to connect to `control.ashx` as the victim user within MeshCentral. Version 1.1.21 contains a patch for this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2022-42793 | 1 Apple | 3 Ipados, Iphone Os, Macos | 2025-04-22 | 5.5 Medium |
| An issue in code signature validation was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Big Sur 11.7, macOS Ventura 13, iOS 16, iOS 15.7 and iPadOS 15.7, macOS Monterey 12.6. An app may be able to bypass code signing checks. | ||||
| CVE-2022-36111 | 1 Codenotary | 1 Immudb | 2025-04-22 | 5.4 Medium |
| immudb is a database with built-in cryptographic proof and verification. In versions prior to 1.4.1, a malicious immudb server can provide a falsified proof that will be accepted by the client SDK signing a falsified transaction replacing the genuine one. This situation can not be triggered by a genuine immudb server and requires the client to perform a specific list of verified operations resulting in acceptance of an invalid state value. This vulnerability only affects immudb client SDKs, the immudb server itself is not affected by this vulnerability. This issue has been patched in version 1.4.1. | ||||
| CVE-2022-41924 | 2 Microsoft, Tailscale | 2 Windows, Tailscale | 2025-04-22 | 9.6 Critical |
| A vulnerability identified in the Tailscale Windows client allows a malicious website to reconfigure the Tailscale daemon `tailscaled`, which can then be used to remotely execute code. In the Tailscale Windows client, the local API was bound to a local TCP socket, and communicated with the Windows client GUI in cleartext with no Host header verification. This allowed an attacker-controlled website visited by the node to rebind DNS to an attacker-controlled DNS server, and then make local API requests in the client, including changing the coordination server to an attacker-controlled coordination server. An attacker-controlled coordination server can send malicious URL responses to the client, including pushing executables or installing an SMB share. These allow the attacker to remotely execute code on the node. All Windows clients prior to version v.1.32.3 are affected. If you are running Tailscale on Windows, upgrade to v1.32.3 or later to remediate the issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-56170 | 1 Nicmx | 1 Fort-validator | 2025-04-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise. Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest. As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation. | ||||
| CVE-2023-28457 | 1 Technitium | 2 Dns Server, Dnsserver | 2025-04-22 | 7.5 High |
| An issue was discovered in Technitium through 11.0.3. It enables attackers to conduct a DNS cache poisoning attack and inject fake responses within 1 second, which is impactful. | ||||
| CVE-2025-3071 | 1 Google | 1 Chrome | 2025-04-21 | 5.4 Medium |
| Inappropriate implementation in Navigations in Google Chrome prior to 135.0.7049.52 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) | ||||
| CVE-2022-46692 | 2 Apple, Redhat | 9 Icloud, Ipados, Iphone Os and 6 more | 2025-04-21 | 5.5 Medium |
| A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Safari 16.2, tvOS 16.2, iCloud for Windows 14.1, iOS 15.7.2 and iPadOS 15.7.2, macOS Ventura 13.1, iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2, watchOS 9.2. Processing maliciously crafted web content may bypass Same Origin Policy. | ||||
| CVE-2021-22573 | 2 Google, Redhat | 3 Oauth Client Library For Java, Camel Spring Boot, Jboss Fuse | 2025-04-21 | 8.7 High |
| The vulnerability is that IDToken verifier does not verify if token is properly signed. Signature verification makes sure that the token's payload comes from valid provider, not from someone else. An attacker can provide a compromised token with custom payload. The token will pass the validation on the client side. We recommend upgrading to version 1.33.3 or above | ||||
| CVE-2017-9606 | 1 Infotecs | 2 Vipnet Client, Vipnet Coordinator | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Infotecs ViPNet Client and Coordinator before 4.3.2-42442 allow local users to gain privileges by placing a Trojan horse ViPNet update file in the update folder. The attack succeeds because of incorrect folder permissions in conjunction with a lack of integrity and authenticity checks. | ||||
| CVE-2017-10669 | 1 Xoev | 1 Osci Transport Library | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Signature Wrapping exists in OSCI-Transport 1.2 as used in OSCI Transport Library 1.6.1 (Java) and OSCI Transport Library 1.6 (.NET). An attacker with access to unencrypted OSCI protocol messages must send crafted protocol messages with duplicate IDs. | ||||
| CVE-2015-9232 | 1 Good | 1 Good For Enterprise | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| The Good for Enterprise application 3.0.0.415 for Android does not use signature protection for its Authentication Delegation API intent. Also, the Good Dynamic application activation process does not attempt to detect malicious activation attempts involving modified names beginning with a com.good.gdgma substring. Consequently, an attacker could obtain access to intranet data. This issue is only relevant in cases where the user has already downloaded a malicious Android application. | ||||
| CVE-2017-8650 | 1 Microsoft | 2 Edge, Windows 10 | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Microsoft Edge in Microsoft Windows 10 1703 allows an attacker to exploit a security feature bypass due to Microsoft Edge not properly enforcing same-origin policies, aka "Microsoft Edge Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability". | ||||
| CVE-2017-17847 | 2 Debian, Enigmail | 2 Debian Linux, Enigmail | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. Signature spoofing is possible because the UI does not properly distinguish between an attachment signature, and a signature that applies to the entire containing message, aka TBE-01-021. This is demonstrated by an e-mail message with an attachment that is a signed e-mail message in message/rfc822 format. | ||||
| CVE-2017-11103 | 5 Apple, Debian, Freebsd and 2 more | 6 Iphone Os, Mac Os X, Debian Linux and 3 more | 2025-04-20 | 8.1 High |
| Heimdal before 7.4 allows remote attackers to impersonate services with Orpheus' Lyre attacks because it obtains service-principal names in a way that violates the Kerberos 5 protocol specification. In _krb5_extract_ticket() the KDC-REP service name must be obtained from the encrypted version stored in 'enc_part' instead of the unencrypted version stored in 'ticket'. Use of the unencrypted version provides an opportunity for successful server impersonation and other attacks. NOTE: this CVE is only for Heimdal and other products that embed Heimdal code; it does not apply to other instances in which this part of the Kerberos 5 protocol specification is violated. | ||||