Export limit exceeded: 10900 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10900 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-106216 | 1 Google | 2 Android, Chrome | 2026-10-09 | 5.4 Medium |
| Cross-site request forgery in ReadingList in Google Chrome on on Android prior to 155.0.8059.39 allowed a remote attacker leveraging social engineering to bypass web origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) | ||||
| CVE-2026-107809 | 1 0xjacky | 1 Nginx-ui | 2026-10-09 | 8.8 High |
| Nginx UI is a web user interface for the Nginx web server. From 2.0.0 until 2.5.0, AuthRequired accepts a browser-managed token cookie as an API credential after the front end stores the JWT in that cookie. Because management endpoints do not universally require a CSRF token or perform Origin or Referer validation, a remote attacker can induce a logged-in administrator's browser to submit authenticated cross-site state-changing requests, including POST /api/configs. The attack requires an administrator account without OTP/Passkey or a target endpoint that does not require secure-session proof. The attacker cannot read the cross-origin response but can modify Nginx configuration, trigger reloads, or invoke other management operations reachable with the victim's session. This issue is fixed in version 2.5.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-86850 | 2026-10-09 | 6.5 Medium | ||
| The SKU Error Fixer for WooCommerce WordPress plugin through 1.0 does not perform any capability or nonce checks on two of its AJAX actions, which are also available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to permanently delete product variations it classifies as obsolete, and to disclose those variations' details, with no recoverable copy left behind. | ||||
| CVE-2026-85348 | 2026-10-09 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| The GDPR Data Request Form WordPress plugin through 1.7.1 does not have CSRF protection when updating one of its settings, allowing attackers to change that setting via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107831 | 1 Banq | 1 Jivejdon | 2026-10-09 | 4.3 Medium |
| Jivejdon through 5.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows remote attackers to perform state-changing actions by abusing GET endpoints lacking anti-CSRF tokens. Attackers can lure authenticated users to crafted links targeting /account/protected/delAll, /account/protected/sub/delSub, or /message/updateAction to delete private messages and subscriptions or rename threads. | ||||
| CVE-2025-70517 | 1 Fanvil | 1 X7a | 2026-10-09 | 8.8 High |
| The request handler of Fanvil x7a firmware version 2.6.0.1182 does not enforce any cross-origin resource protection for any state-changing request performed against the applications. Due to the lack of protection, cross-origin boundary can be completely bypassed, allowing for Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks against any endpoint. | ||||
| CVE-2025-70522 | 1 Fanvil | 1 X7a | 2026-10-09 | 8.8 High |
| The request handler of Fanvil x7a firmware version 2.6.0.1182 does not enforce any cross-origin resource protection for any state-changing request performed against the applications. Due to the lack of protection, cross-origin boundary can be completely bypassed, allowing for Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks against any endpoint. | ||||
| CVE-2026-5703 | 2 Satel-iberia, Satel Iberia | 2 Sennet Datalogger Serie 200, Sennet Datalogger Serie 200 | 2026-10-09 | N/A |
| Path traversal vulnerability in the Satel Iberia SenNet Datalogger Serie 200, specifically in the web portal provided by the device, which allows an authenticated user to read any file or list any directory accessible to the system user running the web server. This is possible by modifying the URL to include a path traversal payload. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to access critical system files containing confidential information. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105260 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Database Addon For Wpforms | 2026-10-09 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Database Addon For WPForms ( wpforms entries ) WordPress plugin before 1.1.1 does not verify the CSRF nonce when the field is omitted and performs no capability check of its own, allowing attackers to delete arbitrary stored form entries by tricking a logged-in administrator into loading a crafted page. | ||||
| CVE-2026-107337 | 1 Cisagov | 1 Malcolm | 2026-10-09 | 7.1 High |
| The Malcolm kiosk Flask application exposes a POST /script_call/<script> endpoint with zero authentication and wildcard CORS (CORS(app)). An attacker can force the operator's browser to execute arbitrary management commands via CSRF, including control.py --wipe which permanently deletes all captured network traffic and forensic logs, or control.py --stop which blinds the security monitoring. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106434 | 1 Mongodb | 1 Libmongocrypt | 2026-10-08 | 4.3 Medium |
| The explicit decryption component of MongoDB libmongocrypt can return an unrecognized encrypted payload unchanged instead of returning a decryption error. An actor who can modify stored encrypted fields, such as a database writer, server, or network intermediary, can cause an affected application to process the supplied bytes as decrypted plaintext. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106611 | 2026-10-08 | 7.1 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WPMU DEV Forminator forminator allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Forminator: from n/a through 1.57.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-72849 | 1 Budibase | 2 Budibase, Server | 2026-10-08 | 7.7 High |
| Budibase before 3.40.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the chat-link handoff endpoint that allows attackers to bind an external chat identity to a victim's account. Attackers can craft a phishing page that auto-submits a POST request with a leaked confirmation token to bind their chat identity to a victim user's account, enabling impersonation within agent operations and inheritance of victim permissions. | ||||
| CVE-2026-66479 | 2026-10-08 | 7.1 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Liquid Web / StellarWP WPComplete wpcomplete allows Stored XSS.This issue affects WPComplete: from n/a through 2.9.5.6. | ||||
| CVE-2026-62142 | 2026-10-08 | 8.8 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Melapress WP 2FA wp-2fa allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP 2FA: from n/a through 4.1.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102784 | 1 Balbooa.com | 1 Gridbox Extension For Joomla | 2026-10-08 | N/A |
| Joomla Extension - balbooa.com - CSRF in language installation feature Gridbox < 2.20.4.0 - PagesController uses a trait that validates the Joomla session token only when the HTTP method is POST. addLanguage does not require POST inside the action and reads url and zip through the generic request input. A GET request can therefore reach the action without the trait checking a token. The action still requires core.tools , but that is the victim’s permission check; it does not prove that the privileged user intended the request. | ||||
| CVE-2026-103001 | 2 Jpadilla, Pyjwt Project | 2 Pyjwt, Pyjwt | 2026-10-08 | 6.5 Medium |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.11.0 through 2.13.0, PyJWT's PyJWT._merge_options() method can modify a caller-supplied mutable options mapping when verify_signature is false. If an application reuses that same mapping for a later decode() or decode_complete() call and changes verify_signature to true, the mapping can retain false values for expiration, not-before, issued-at, audience, issuer, subject, and JWT ID checks. A signed token with invalid registered claims can then be accepted without disabling signature verification, but applications that create a fresh options mapping for each call are not affected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-105683 | 1 Ghost | 1 Ghost | 2026-10-08 | 3.8 Low |
| Ghost is a Node.js content management system. From 6.14.0 until 6.27.0, an input validation issue may have allowed staff users to access local files outside the intended data storage directories on the server. This issue is fixed in version 6.27.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-35191 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-10-08 | 3.7 Low |
| Issue summary: The OpenSSL QUIC server, when configured to not preform address validation, can be forced to count incoming packets multiple times in its unvalidated credit computation, leading to a violation of the RFC 9000 unvalidated connection amplification limit of 3 times the amount of data received. Impact summary: A remote attacker able to spoof packets to a server using the OpenSSL QUIC implementation might use the server for an amplification of a DDoS attack. CWE: CWE-440: Expected Behavior Violation Description: OpenSSL's QUIC stack, when operating as a server, enforces client address validation (RFC 9000, Section 8), to confirm the peer address is not used for a traffic amplification attack. If this feature is disabled on the server, the QUIC stack limits the amount of server data that can be sent to 3 times the amount of data received from the peer address, until such time as the TLS handshake is completed. The OpenSSL QUIC server, when operating in non-validation mode, adds the length of the whole datagram received to the unvalidated credit limit when processing each QUIC packet in the datagram. A remote peer may, after establishing a connection with an initial client hello frame, send a subsequent datagram containing multiple QUIC packets, leading the server to account the entire datagram length for each packet in the datagram, resulting in the server believing that the peer has sent more data than it actually has, thereby violating the 3x amplification limit mandated by the RFC. FIPS impact: no As the QUIC stack lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE. | ||||
| CVE-2026-79801 | 1 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe) | 1 Clearpass Policy Manager (cppm) | 2026-10-07 | 9.8 Critical |
| A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the client agent software of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to introduce untrusted code. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected client system. | ||||