| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| All versions of package dojo are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution via the setObject function. |
| Missing authorization in Azure SRE Agent allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network. |
| Indico is an event management system that uses Flask-Multipass, a multi-backend authentication system for Flask. Prior to 3.3.13, the previous fix for CVE-2026-25738 did not cover an edge case, allowing an event organizer to submit a crafted URL that points to a prohibited local target but is accepted as valid by Indico. The organizer can read data returned by the target through affected Indico features. This issue is fixed in version 3.3.13. |
| FFmpeg before 7.1.4 and 8.0.x before 8.0.2 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in ff_rtsp_connect() in libavformat/rtsp.c that follows RTSP 3xx redirects without validating the Location URL. Malicious RTSP servers can redirect FFmpeg to internal hosts and ports under other schemes, bypassing -protocol_whitelist, to probe internal network services. |
| HCL BigFix Service Management is affected by a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its search functionality, which could allow an attacker to force the application server to send requests to internal systems that are not accessible from the internet. |
| Pydantic AI is a Python agent framework for building applications and workflows with Generative AI. From 1.77.0 until 1.107.6 and 2.44.0, the local web_fetch_tool and the WebFetch local fallback compare blocked_domains entries with a URL hostname before both values are normalized to the form used by getaddrinfo. An attacker-influenced model can use an equivalent IDNA spelling, non-ASCII label separator, case variation, or trailing root label that resolves to a blocked host but does not match the configured string, causing the application to fetch that host with its own privileges. allowed_domains fails closed for unmatched spellings, and private-IP and cloud-metadata protections remain effective. This issue is fixed in versions 1.107.6 and 2.44.0. |
| Pydantic AI is a Python agent framework for building applications and workflows with Generative AI. From 1.56.0 until 1.107.6 and 2.44.0, applications that opt attacker-influenced URLs into local network access through FileUrl with force_download='allow-local' or web_fetch_tool with allow_local_urls=True can bypass the cloud-metadata blocklist by appending an IPv6 zone identifier to an IPv6 metadata address. IPv6Address equality and hashing include the zone identifier, so the blocklist comparison fails even though the network stack ignores the zone on a non-link-local destination and reaches the metadata service, potentially exposing cloud IAM credentials. The opt-in settings are disabled by default, and the issue requires an IPv6-enabled environment. This issue is fixed in versions 1.107.6 and 2.44.0. |
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in an expression language statement ('Expression Language Injection') vulnerability in Apache Struts. If the application is configured to use the legacy RESTful action mapper, a crafted request can inject an OGNL expression that may lead to remote code execution. Struts 7 is affected only when the OGNL allowlist is disabled; it is enabled by default. Applications using the default action mapper, the restful2 mapper, or the Struts REST plugin are not affected.
This issue affects Apache Struts: from 2.0.0 through 2.3.37, from 2.5.0 through 2.5.33, from 6.0.0 through 6.11.0, from 7.0.0 through 7.3.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.12.0 or 7.4.0, which fixes the issue. |
| linuxserver Heimdall through 2.8.3 applies its SafeUrlFetcher SSRF protection mechanism only to ItemController; the enhanced-application test and live-stats requests occur via SupportedApps::execute(), a GuzzleHttp client that lacks IP address restrictions. In some realistic installations, the POST /test_config (and GET /get_stats) endpoints are accessible through CSRF, and thus an unauthenticated attacker can force the server to send requests to arbitrary internal hosts and ports (including 169.254.169.254) and read a status/port oracle in addition to partial response data. |
| Ollama is vulnerable to path traversal in the `/api/pull` endpoint due to insufficient validation of layer digests by the `digestToPath` function. An unauthenticated remote attacker can specify a path traversal sequence as a layer digest, causing a malicious binary to be written outside the model store.
Critically if the server process has write access to `/usr/lib/ollama` (the default in most Ollama Docker images), an attacker can write the malicious file to that directory. On the next server restart, the file is loaded and executed, resulting in remote code execution as root.
This issue was fixed in version 0.35.0. |
| A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS). |
| Electron is a framework for writing cross-platform desktop applications using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. Prior to 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3, when following HTTP redirects, net.fetch() and net.request() did not restrict which schemes a redirect could target. A remote server could redirect a request to a local resource, and if the app returns or forwards the response body, local file contents could be disclosed. Apps are only affected if they make net requests to attacker-influenced URLs with redirects followed and expose the response body. This issue is fixed in versions 39.8.8, 40.9.0, 41.2.1, and 42.0.0-beta.3. |
| -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation. |
| Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state. |
| Kiteworks Secure Data Forms before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to make the server issue arbitrary outbound network requests and read back the responses. This could potentially be used to reach internal-only services or other network-restricted resources. |
| IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 is vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF). This may allow an authenticated attacker to send unauthorized requests from the system, potentially leading to network enumeration or facilitating other attacks. |
