Export limit exceeded: 425425 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (425425 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-119035 | 2026-11-12 | 6.4 Medium | ||
| The Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP WordPress plugin before 1.70 does not safely encode its structured data output when the Pretty Print option is enabled, allowing users with a role as low as Contributor to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks when the site maps a schema property to a custom field. | ||||
| 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-2026-118241 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Smush | 2026-11-12 | 2.7 Low |
| The Smush WordPress plugin before 4.3.6 does not verify that a user is authorised to act on the targeted media attachment, only checking a broad upload-files capability, which allows users with the Author role and above to optimise and restore attachments owned by other users, altering their files on disk and consuming the stored backup. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119303 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Notificationx | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium |
| The NotificationX WordPress plugin before 3.3.7 does not perform any capability or nonce check on one of its REST routes, allowing unauthenticated users to update a NotificationX WordPress plugin before 3.3.7 option and to repeatedly trigger emails sent through the site's own mail server. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119531 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Live Composer | 2026-11-12 | 6.8 Medium |
| The Live Composer WordPress plugin before 2.1.24 does not escape several attributes of one of its page-builder shortcodes before outputting them inside HTML tag attributes, allowing users with the Contributor role and above to store a payload that executes in the browser of anyone who views the post, including an administrator reviewing the pending submission. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119032 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP WordPress plugin before 1.70 does not check that the importing user may edit the posts named in a settings backup, nor restrict the import to its own post types, allowing users whose role an administrator has granted access to the Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP WordPress plugin before 1.70's settings to modify, re-author, unpublish or trash any post or page on the site and write arbitrary post meta. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119033 | 2026-11-12 | 2.2 Low | ||
| The Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP WordPress plugin before 1.70 does not verify that a user may edit a post before letting them change that post's structured data settings, allowing users with the Contributor role and above, when an administrator has granted them access to the Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP WordPress plugin before 1.70, to disable, alter or reset the structured data of posts they do not own. | ||||
| 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-2026-126183 | 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. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126232 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortianalyzer, Fortianalyzercloud, Fortimanager and 1 more | 2026-11-12 | 7.5 High |
| A improper certificate validation 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 all versions, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 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 all versions, 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 all versions, 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 all versions may allow a MITM attacker to impersonate the radius server via a rogue RADIUS server. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126224 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortianalyzer, Fortianalyzercloud, Fortimanager and 1 more | 2026-11-12 | 7.2 High |
| A improper neutralization of argument delimiters in a command ('argument injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0, 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, 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, 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, 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 privileged admin user to execute unauthorized code or commands. | ||||
| CVE-2026-122087 | 2026-11-12 | 3.7 Low | ||
| The Event Tickets and Registration WordPress plugin before 5.30.3.1 does not restrict attendee data to events the requester is allowed to view, allowing unauthenticated users to retrieve the attendees of private and other non-public events. | ||||
| CVE-2026-121873 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The Redirection for Contact Form 7 WordPress plugin before 3.2.16 does not verify ownership of the email address supplied through its data request form action and by default records the resulting request as already confirmed, allowing unauthenticated visitors to create verified WordPress personal data erasure or export requests for addresses they do not control. | ||||