Export limit exceeded: 425024 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (425024 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-119529 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Gravity Forms | 2026-11-12 | 5.9 Medium |
| The Gravity Forms WordPress plugin before 3.2.2 does not properly restrict the file types that unauthenticated users can upload through its chunked file upload feature, allowing them to read server environment variables and the contents of files within the web root on servers configured to parse Server-Side Include documents, such as Apache with SSI enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2026-88813 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The YITH WooCommerce Gift Cards WordPress plugin through 4.39.0 does not reconcile the value of a gift card it issues against the amount actually paid for it, instead crediting the new card with the item's pre-discount price, which allows customers to apply an ordinary store coupon at checkout and receive a gift card worth more than they paid. | ||||
| CVE-2026-117521 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Dynific Addons For Elementor | 2026-11-12 | 6.8 Medium |
| The Dynific Addons for Elementor (formerly Anywhere Elementor) WordPress plugin before 1.3.1 does not escape a user-controlled profile value before outputting it in a quoted attribute in one of its Elementor widgets, allowing authenticated users with the Author role to store a payload that executes in the session of anyone, including an administrator, who views a post the attacker authored, resulting in Stored Cross-Site Scripting. | ||||
| CVE-2026-123668 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Getpaid | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium |
| The GetPaid WordPress plugin from 2.8.63 to 2.8.64 does not ensure item quantities on its payment forms are whole numbers, allowing unauthenticated users to have an invoice for a priced item marked as paid without being charged. | ||||
| CVE-2026-121497 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Askany | 2026-11-12 | 9.8 Critical |
| The AskAny WordPress plugin before 2.2.0 does not validate the extension or content of files attached to chat messages, trusting the browser-supplied file type instead, which allows unauthenticated users to upload PHP files and execute arbitrary code when visitor attachments are enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2026-104718 | 2026-11-12 | 6.8 Medium | ||
| The Elementor Website Builder WordPress plugin before 4.3.6 does not validate or escape an element identifier before rendering it into a client-side framework attribute that is evaluated as JavaScript, allowing users with the Contributor role to store scripts that execute in the browser of anyone viewing the affected content, including an administrator reviewing the submission for publication. | ||||
| CVE-2026-111597 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Forminator Forms | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium |
| The Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.58.4 does not verify that a Stripe Checkout payment has completed before returning a pending submission's after-payment response, allowing unauthenticated visitors to obtain the post-payment redirect URL and thank-you message of a payment-gated form without paying. | ||||
| CVE-2026-115734 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Pay With A Tweet | 2026-11-12 | 9.6 Critical |
| The Pay with a tweet WordPress plugin through 1.0.5 does not validate a file path before deleting it, nor does it restrict access to the relevant administration screens, allowing users with a role as low as Subscriber to delete arbitrary files on the server, which can lead to a full site compromise. | ||||
| CVE-2026-123667 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Photo Engine | 2026-11-12 | 6.4 Medium |
| The Photo Engine (Media Organizer & Lightroom) WordPress plugin before 6.6.2 does not sanitise and escape keyword names before storing them and outputting them on its debugging page, allowing users with the Author role and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks against administrators who have enabled that page. | ||||
| CVE-2026-57845 | 1 Huggingface | 1 Datasets | 2026-11-12 | 8.8 High |
| Hugging Face Datasets before 5.2.0 contains an insecure deserialization vulnerability that allows attackers to execute arbitrary Python code by crafting a malicious pickle file loaded through the deprecated pandas packaged builder. Attackers can supply a pickle-backed dataset that is processed by Pandas._generate_tables via pandas.read_pickle() without validation, so when a victim calls datasets.load_dataset("pandas", data_files=...), the embedded __reduce__ payload executes code with the victim process's privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-63980 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-11-12 | 7.5 High |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/handshake: Use spin_lock_bh for hn_lock nvmet_tcp_state_change(), a socket callback that runs in BH context, can reach handshake_req_cancel() via nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue() and tls_handshake_cancel(). handshake_req_cancel() acquires hn->hn_lock with plain spin_lock(). If a process-context thread on the same CPU holds hn->hn_lock when a softirq invokes the cancel path, the lock attempt deadlocks. This is the only caller that invokes tls_handshake_cancel() from BH context; every other consumer calls it from process context. Deferring the cancel to process context in the NVMe target is not straightforward: nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue() must call tls_handshake_cancel() atomically with its state transition to DISCONNECTING. If the cancel were deferred, the handshake completion callback could fire in the window before the cancel runs, observe the unexpected state, and return without dropping its kref on the queue. Reworking that interlock is considerably more invasive than hardening the handshake lock. Convert all hn->hn_lock acquisitions from spin_lock/spin_unlock to spin_lock_bh/spin_unlock_bh so the lock is never taken with softirqs enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2026-63979 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-11-12 | 9.8 Critical |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/handshake: hand off the pinned file reference to accept_doit handshake_req_next() removes the request from the per-net pending list and drops hn_lock before handshake_nl_accept_doit() reads req->hr_sk->sk_socket and dereferences sock->file (once in FD_PREPARE() and again in get_file()). In that window a consumer running tls_handshake_cancel() followed by sockfd_put() (svc_sock_free) or __fput_sync() (xs_reset_transport) releases sock->file. sock_release() then runs sock_orphan(), zeroing sk_socket, and frees the struct socket. The accept-side code either reads NULL through sk_socket or chases freed memory. The submit-side sock_hold() does not prevent this. sk_refcnt protects struct sock, but struct socket and sock->file are independently refcounted via the file descriptor the consumer owns. Pinning sk leaves sock and sock->file unprotected. Retarget the accept-side dereferences at req->hr_file, which was pinned at submit time, instead of req->hr_sk->sk_socket->file. Pinning on its own is not sufficient: a consumer that cancels between handshake_req_next() returning and accept_doit reaching FD_PREPARE() takes the !remove_pending() branch in handshake_req_cancel() and drops hr_file before the accept side takes its own reference. Hand off an additional file reference inside handshake_req_next(), under hn_lock, so the accept side operates on a reference that no concurrent handshake_req_cancel() can revoke. FD_PREPARE() consumes that handed-off reference, either by transferring it to the new fd in fd_publish() or by dropping it in the cleanup destructor on error; the explicit get_file() that previously balanced FD_PREPARE() is therefore redundant and goes away. Update handshake_req_cancel_test2 and _test3 to simulate the FD_PREPARE() consumption with an fput() so the kunit file-count assertions stay balanced. | ||||
| CVE-2026-15785 | 2026-11-12 | 6.1 Medium | ||
| The Joinchat – Enhanced "click to chat" plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via '{HREF}' Dynamic Variable via Query Parameter Name in all versions up to, and including, 6.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. Exploitation requires that an administrator has configured a telephone number and included the {HREF} dynamic variable in the Call-to-Action text. | ||||
| CVE-2026-125448 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kaliforms Kali Forms kali-forms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Kali Forms: from n/a through 2.4.31. | ||||
| CVE-2026-125845 | 2026-11-12 | 8.8 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in webriti vdequator vdequator allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects vdequator: from n/a through 1.2.7. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126722 | 2026-11-12 | N/A | ||
| Rooxis RXR-12 Wi-Fi router contains an undocumented telnet backdoor daemon (/usr/bin/telnetd_startup) that, upon receipt of a precomputed AES-128-CBC magic packet using a firmware-wide static key and IV, enables telnet service with default credentials, providing remote root access. Firmware 20260813_c2169ea5 removes the UDP listener entirely, and users can update through their local web interface. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126332 | 2026-11-12 | N/A | ||
| Improper access control in the autofill vault search in Devolutions Server 2026.3.13.0 and earlier allows an authenticated user with only view permission on a shared entry to obtain its password in clear text via a linked credential entry created in their private vault. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126178 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortianalyzer, Fortianalyzercloud, Fortimanager and 1 more | 2026-11-12 | 7.2 High |
| A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an authenticated attacker with admin privileges to execute unauthorized code or commands via a crafted request. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126183 | 1 Fortinet | 2 Fortimanager, Fortimanagercloud | 2026-11-12 | 8.7 High |
| A authorization bypass through user-controlled key vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an authenticated attacker to execute commands outside of the expected scope via specially crafted HTTP request. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126223 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortianalyzer, Fortianalyzercloud, Fortimanager and 1 more | 2026-11-12 | 7.2 High |
| A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11 may allow an authenticated administrator to execute unauthorized code or commands or cause a denial of service via specially crafted JSON-RPC requests. | ||||