| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Clickjacking vulnerability in Clibo Manager v1.1.9.12 in the '/public/login' directory, a login panel. This vulnerability occurs due to the absence of an X-Frame-Options server-side header. An attacker could overlay a transparent iframe to perform click hijacking on victims. |
| NEC Corporation's WebSAM DeploymentManager v6.0 to v6.80 allows an attacker to reset configurations or restart products via network with X-FRAME-OPTIONS is not specified. |
| Affected is an unknown function of the component Login Page. The manipulation leads to improper restriction of rendered ui layers. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. |
| Malicious content from E-Mail can be used to perform a redressing attack. Users can be tricked to perform unintended actions or provide sensitive information to a third party which would enable further threats. Attribute values containing HTML fragments are now denied by the sanitization procedure. No publicly available exploits are known |
| Incorrect security UI in Permissions in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Incorrect security UI in Omnibox in Google Chrome on Android prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Policy bypass in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Insufficient policy enforcement in browser UI in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Incorrect security UI in Downloads in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| The issue was addressed with improved UI handling. This issue is fixed in Safari 17.6, macOS Monterey 12.7.6, macOS Sonoma 14.6, macOS Ventura 13.6.8. Visiting a website that frames malicious content may lead to UI spoofing. |
| HCL Nomad server on Domino did not configure the frame-ancestors directive in the Content-Security-Policy header by default which could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors. |
| The CGM CLININET application does not implement any mechanisms that prevent clickjacking attacks, neither HTTP security headers nor HTML-based frame‑busting protections were detected. As a result, an attacker can embed the application inside a maliciously crafted IFRAME and trick users into performing unintended actions, including potentially bypassing CSRF/XSRF defenses. |
| A missing delay in directory upload UI could have made it possible for an attacker to trick a user into granting permission via clickjacking. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 131, Firefox ESR < 128.3, Thunderbird < 128.3, and Thunderbird < 131. |
| Insufficient data validation in DevTools in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 138.0.7204.49 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to execute arbitrary code via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| In finishTransition of Transition.java, there is a possible way to bypass touch filtering restrictions due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. |
| In multiple locations, there is a possible way to mislead the user into enabling malicious phone calls forwarding due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with User execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. |
| In multiple locations, there is a possible privilege escalation due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| In maybeShowDialog of ControlsSettingsDialogManager.kt, there is a possible overlay of the ControlsSettingsDialog due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| In multiple locations, there is a possible way to trick a user into accepting a permission due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. |
| In DefaultTransitionHandler.java, there is a possible way to unknowingly grant permissions to an app due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. |
