| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A code injection in Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile allowing attackers to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution. |
| OpenClaw before 2026.3.31 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability allowing paired nodes with role=node to dispatch node.event agent requests with unrestricted gateway-side tool access. Attackers with trusted paired node credentials can escalate privileges by leveraging unrestricted agent.request dispatch to achieve remote code execution on the gateway. |
| Pipecat is an open-source Python framework for building real-time voice and multimodal conversational agents. Versions 0.0.41 through 0.0.93 have a vulnerability in `LivekitFrameSerializer` – an optional, non-default, undocumented frame serializer class (now deprecated) intended for LiveKit integration. The class's `deserialize()` method uses Python's `pickle.loads()` on data received from WebSocket clients without any validation or sanitization. This means that a malicious WebSocket client can send a crafted pickle payload to execute arbitrary code on the Pipecat server. The vulnerable code resides in `src/pipecat/serializers/livekit.py` (around line 73), where untrusted WebSocket message data is passed directly into `pickle.loads()` for deserialization. If a Pipecat server is configured to use LivekitFrameSerializer and is listening on an external interface (e.g. 0.0.0.0), an attacker on the network (or the internet, if the service is exposed) could achieve remote code execution (RCE) on the server by sending a malicious pickle payload. Version 0.0.94 contains a fix. Users of Pipecat should avoid or replace unsafe deserialization and improve network security configuration. The best mitigation is to stop using the vulnerable LivekitFrameSerializer altogether. Those who require LiveKit functionality should upgrade to the latest Pipecat version and switch to the recommended `LiveKitTransport` or another secure method provided by the framework. Additionally, always follow secure coding practices: never trust client-supplied data, and avoid Python pickle (or similar unsafe deserialization) in network-facing components. |
| Ollama for Windows contains a Remote Code Execution vulnerability in its update mechanism due to improper handling of attacker‑controlled HTTP response headers. When downloading updates, the application constructs local file paths using values derived from HTTP headers without validation. These values are passed directly to filepath.Join, allowing path traversal sequences (../) to be resolved and enabling files to be written outside the intended update staging directory.
An attacker who can influence update responses can exploit this flaw to write arbitrary executables to attacker‑chosen locations accessible to the current user, including the Windows Startup directory. This allows execution of arbitrary executables.
Critically, when chained with CVE‑2026‑42248 (Missing Signature Verification for Updates), an attacker can deliver malicious payloads that are written to sensitive locations and executed automatically. Because Ollama for Windows performs silent automatic updates and executes staged binaries without user interaction, this results in automatic and persistent code execution without user awareness.
Maintainers of this project were notified early about this vulnerability, but didn't respond with the details of vulnerability or vulnerable version range. Versions from 0.12.10 to 0.17.5 were tested and confirmed as vulnerable, other versions were not tested but might also be vulnerable. |
| Jenkins Credentials Binding Plugin 719.v80e905ef14eb_ and earlier does not sanitize file names for file and zip file credentials, allowing attackers able to provide credentials to a job to write files to arbitrary locations on the node filesystem, which can lead to remote code execution if Jenkins is configured to allow a low-privileged user to configure file or zip file credentials used for a job running on the built-in node. |
| SGLang's reranking endpoint (/v1/rerank) achieves Remote Code Execution (RCE) when a model file containing a malcious tokenizer.chat_template is loaded, as the Jinja2 chat templates are rendered using an unsandboxed jinja2.Environment(). |
| Due to improper TLS certificate validation in the DeskTime Time Tracking App before version 1.3.674, attackers who can position themselves in the network path between the client and the DeskTime update servers can return a malicious executable in response to an update request. This allows the attacker to achieve user-level remote code execution on the affected client. |
| A code injection in Ivanti Endpoint Manager Mobile allowing attackers to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution. |
| FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the upstream DNS servers configuration parameter (dns.upstreams). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6. |
| FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DNS CNAME records configuration parameter (dns.cnameRecords). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6. |
| FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DNS host record configuration parameter (dns.hostRecord). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6. |
| FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DHCP lease time configuration parameter (dhcp.leaseTime). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6. |
| FTLDNS (pihole-FTL) provides an interactive API and also generates statistics for Pi-hole's Web interface. From 6.0 to before 6.6, the Pi-hole FTL engine contains a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in the DHCP hosts configuration parameter (dhcp.hosts). This vulnerability allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary dnsmasq configuration directives through newline characters, ultimately achieving command execution on the underlying system. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.6. |
| Versions of the package simple-git before 3.36.0 are vulnerable to Remote Code Execution (RCE) due to an incomplete fix for [CVE-2022-25912](https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-SIMPLEGIT-3112221) that blocks the -c option but not the equivalent --config form. If untrusted input can reach the options argument passed to simple-git, an attacker may still achieve remote code execution by enabling protocol.ext.allow=always and using an ext:: clone source. |
| The fix for CVE-2025-27636 added setLowerCase(true) to HttpHeaderFilterStrategy so that case-variant header names such as 'CAmelExecCommandExecutable' are filtered out alongside 'CamelExecCommandExecutable'. The same setLowerCase(true) call was not applied to five non-HTTP HeaderFilterStrategy implementations: JmsHeaderFilterStrategy and ClassicJmsHeaderFilterStrategy in camel-jms, SjmsHeaderFilterStrategy in camel-sjms, CoAPHeaderFilterStrategy in camel-coap, and GooglePubsubHeaderFilterStrategy in camel-google-pubsub. Because those strategies use case-sensitive String.startsWith('Camel'/'camel') filtering while the Camel Exchange stores headers in a case-insensitive map, an attacker with JMS (or equivalent) producer access to the broker consumed by a Camel route can inject case-variant Camel internal headers, which are then resolved by downstream components such as camel-exec and camel-file using their canonical casing. This enables remote code execution and arbitrary file write on routes that forward JMS messages to header-driven components.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 3.0.0 before 4.14.6, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.2, from 4.19.0 before 4.20.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.20.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.6. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.2. |
| JmsBinding.extractBodyFromJms() in camel-jms, and the equivalent JmsBinding class in camel-sjms, deserialized the payload of incoming JMS ObjectMessage values via javax.jms.ObjectMessage.getObject() without applying any ObjectInputFilter, class allowlist or class denylist. Because this code path is reached whenever the mapJmsMessage option is enabled (the default) and Camel acts as a JMS consumer, an attacker able to publish a crafted ObjectMessage to a queue or topic consumed by a Camel application could achieve remote code execution when a deserialization gadget chain was present on the classpath. The same handling was reached transitively through camel-sjms2 (whose Sjms2Endpoint extends SjmsEndpoint) and through camel-amqp (whose AMQPJmsBinding extends JmsBinding), and by other JMS-family components built on JmsComponent such as camel-activemq and camel-activemq6.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 3.0.0 before 4.14.7, from 4.15.0 before 4.18.2, from 4.19.0 before 4.20.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.20.0, which fixes the issue. If users are on the 4.14.x LTS releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.14.7. If users are on the 4.18.x releases stream, then they are suggested to upgrade to 4.18.2. |
| Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in Apache Camel Camel-Coap component.
Apache Camel's camel-coap component is vulnerable to Camel message header injection, leading to remote code execution when routes forward CoAP requests to header-sensitive producers (e.g. camel-exec)
The camel-coap component maps incoming CoAP request URI query parameters directly into Camel Exchange In message headers without applying any HeaderFilterStrategy.
Specifically, CamelCoapResource.handleRequest() iterates over OptionSet.getUriQuery() and calls camelExchange.getIn().setHeader(...) for every query parameter. CoAPEndpoint extends DefaultEndpoint rather than DefaultHeaderFilterStrategyEndpoint, and CoAPComponent does not implement HeaderFilterStrategyComponent; the component contains no references to HeaderFilterStrategy at all.
As a result, an unauthenticated attacker who can send a single CoAP UDP packet to a Camel route consuming from coap:// can inject arbitrary Camel internal headers (those prefixed with Camel*) into the Exchange. When the route delivers the message to a header-sensitive producer such as camel-exec, camel-sql, camel-bean, camel-file, or template components (camel-freemarker, camel-velocity), the injected headers can alter the producer's behavior. In the case of camel-exec, the CamelExecCommandExecutable and CamelExecCommandArgs headers override the executable and arguments configured on the endpoint, resulting in arbitrary OS command execution under the privileges of the Camel process.
The producer's output is written back to the Exchange body and returned in the CoAP response payload by CamelCoapResource, giving the attacker an interactive RCE channel without any need for out-of-band exfiltration.
Exploitation prerequisites are minimal: a single unauthenticated UDP datagram to the CoAP port (default 5683). CoAP (RFC 7252) has no built-in authentication, and DTLS is optional and disabled by default. Because the protocol is UDP-based, HTTP-layer WAF/IDS controls do not apply.
This issue affects Apache Camel: from 4.14.0 through 4.14.5, from 4.18.0 before 4.18.1, 4.19.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.18.1 or 4.19.0, fixing the issue. |
| OpenClaw before 2026.4.8 contains a remote code execution vulnerability caused by missing environment variable denylist entries for HGRCPATH, CARGO_BUILD_RUSTC_WRAPPER, RUSTC_WRAPPER, and MAKEFLAGS. Attackers can inject malicious build tool environment variables to influence host exec commands and achieve arbitrary code execution. |
| openITCOCKPIT is an open source monitoring tool built for different monitoring engines. openITCOCKPIT Community Edition prior to version 5.5.2 contains a command injection vulnerability that allows an authenticated user with permission to add or modify hosts to execute arbitrary OS commands on the monitoring backend. The vulnerability arises because user-controlled host attributes (specifically the host address) are expanded into monitoring command templates without validation, escaping, or quoting. These templates are later executed by the monitoring engine (Nagios/Icinga) via a shell, resulting in remote code execution. Version 5.5.2 patches the issue. |
| Remote Code Execution Vulnerability in JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 - Manager on Windows, JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 - Operations Director on Windows, Job Management Partner 1/IT Desktop Management 2 - Manager on Windows, JP1/IT Desktop Management - Manager on Windows, Job Management Partner 1/IT Desktop Management - Manager on Windows, JP1/NETM/DM Manager on Windows, JP1/NETM/DM Client on Windows, Job Management Partner 1/Software Distribution Manager on Windows, Job Management Partner 1/Software Distribution Client on Windows.This issue affects JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 - Manager: from 13-50 before 13-50-02, from 13-11 before 13-11-04, from 13-10 before 13-10-07, from 13-01 before 13-01-07, from 13-00 before 13-00-05, from 12-60 before 12-60-12, from 10-50 through 12-50-11; JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 - Operations Director: from 13-50 before 13-50-02, from 13-11 before 13-11-04, from 13-10 before 13-10-07, from 13-01 before 13-01-07, from 13-00 before 13-00-05, from 12-60 before 12-60-12, from 10-50 through 12-50-11; Job Management Partner 1/IT Desktop Management 2 - Manager: from 10-50 through 10-50-11; JP1/IT Desktop Management - Manager: from 09-50 through 10-10-16; Job Management Partner 1/IT Desktop Management - Manager: from 09-50 through 10-10-16; JP1/NETM/DM Manager: from 09-00 through 10-20-02; JP1/NETM/DM Client: from 09-00 through 10-20-02; Job Management Partner 1/Software Distribution Manager: from 09-00 through 09-51-13; Job Management Partner 1/Software Distribution Client: from 09-00 through 09-51-13. |
