Export limit exceeded: 16597 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (16597 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-113874 | 1 Smilecdr | 1 Hapi Fhir | 2026-11-06 | 8.1 High |
| SmileCDR HAPI FHIR allows an untrusted bundle body to replace a partition identity previously established by a trusted source, and does not enforce storage partition entitlement by default. An attacker authorized for one tenant can read from or write to another tenant's partition. | ||||
| CVE-2026-102943 | 1 Dagucloud | 1 Dagu | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| Dagu is a workflow engine with a built-in Web user interface. Prior to version 2.11.0, its MCP dagu_read operation with target dag_spec invokes the DAG specification API directly, bypassing the HTTP middleware introduced for CVE-2026-33344. The underlying resolver does not restrict resolved paths to configured DAG directories. An authenticated attacker with a viewer-role API key can supply an absolute or traversing path to read .yaml or .yml files outside those directories that are accessible to the Dagu process. The affected operation does not provide write or execution capability. This issue is fixed in version 2.11.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-101592 | 1 Oracle | 1 Agile Product Lifecycle Management For Process | 2026-11-06 | 5.4 Medium |
| Vulnerability in the Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process product of Oracle Supply Chain (component: Product Quality Management). The supported version that is affected is 6.2.4. Easily exploitable vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized update, insert or delete access to some of Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process accessible data as well as unauthorized read access to a subset of Oracle Agile Product Lifecycle Management for Process accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.4 (Confidentiality and Integrity impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N). | ||||
| CVE-2026-117649 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 3.5 Low |
| The issue timeline API and the web issue page hid cross-reference events that point at issues the reader cannot access, but not "dependency added" and "dependency removed" events. When a readable issue had been linked as a dependency to an issue in a repository the reader cannot access, for example a private repository, any reader of the first issue, including anonymous users of a public repository, received the linked issue's current title, body, state, labels, poster and attachment names through the API, and its repository, number and title on the web page. Creating the link requires access to both issues; comments and attachment downloads of the linked issue stayed protected. Dependency events are now filtered with the same read permission check; a related exposure of unlinked attachment metadata through hidden dependency placeholders was already fixed in 28.2.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119533 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 7.5 High |
| Repository and organization project boards listed the pull requests that reference each issue on the board without checking whether the viewer can read them. When a private pull request mentions an issue on a board the viewer can open, the board revealed the private repository's path and the pull request's number, title and state, to anonymous visitors in the case of a public board. The pull request body, diff and files were not exposed. Boards now skip linked pull requests in repositories where the viewer cannot read pull requests. | ||||
| CVE-2026-17039 | 1 Redhat | 4 Certificate System, Dogtag Certificate System, Enterprise Linux and 1 more | 2026-11-06 | 3.1 Low |
| A flaw was found in pki-core. The certificate authority (CA) renewal request path does not perform the realm-based authorization check that the enrollment path performs, allowing an authenticated user entitled to one realm to cause a certificate belonging to a different realm to be renewed without that realm's authorization. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114535 | 1 Drupal | 1 Swiper Formatter | 2026-11-06 | 5.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Swiper formatter allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects Swiper formatter versions: from 0.0.0 to 2.1.2, from 3.0.1 to 3.1.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114533 | 1 Drupal | 1 Ágora Transparency Theme | 2026-11-06 | 5.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Ágora Transparency Theme allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects Ágora Transparency Theme versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.2.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-118386 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| Workflows triggered by a pull request review were read from the commit named in the review's `commit_id`, while the fork restrictions were decided by the reviewed pull request, and the commit was not checked to belong to that pull request. A user with read access to a repository could place a commit of their own in it, through a fork pull request or an AGit push, and submit a review naming that commit on a pull request whose head branch is in the same repository. On instances with a runner serving the repository, the attacker's workflow then ran without approval, received the Actions secrets of the repository and its owner, and got a `GITEA_TOKEN` with write access to the repository. Review-triggered workflows now run on the pull request head. | ||||
| CVE-2026-116289 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 9.1 Critical |
| Gitea did not reject personal access tokens restricted to public resources (`public-only`) on the organization Actions runner registration-token endpoint, and the runner registered with the resulting token was not limited to public repositories. Holding only such a token with `write:organization` that belongs to an owner of a public organization, an attacker could register an organization-level runner and receive jobs of the organization's private repositories that have Actions enabled, including the workflow content, Actions secrets and variables, and a task token with access to the private repository. The issue widens what the restricted token can reach; it gives nothing beyond what the owner's full account can already do. | ||||
| CVE-2026-117685 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 9.1 Critical |
| The OCI registry's cross-repository blob mount checked the target package against the token's `public-only` restriction, but checked the source blob only against the full account permissions of the token owner. A `public-only` token with `write:package` scope, whose owner can read a private package and write to a public package namespace, could mount a blob of the private package into the public package. The private blob, such as a container layer, could then be downloaded by anyone through the public package. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119441 | 1 Gitea | 1 Gitea | 2026-11-06 | 7.5 High |
| `DELETE /api/v1/orgs/{org}/repos` deletes all repositories of an organization, but it did not enforce the public-only restriction of access tokens: the route only checked that the organization itself was public. A public-only token of an owner of a public organization could therefore permanently delete the organization's private repositories, which such a token must not reach. Routes that require organization ownership now reject public-only tokens. | ||||
| CVE-2026-109081 | 2 Keycloak, Redhat | 3 Keycloak, Build Keycloak, Red Hat Single Sign On | 2026-11-06 | 6.8 Medium |
| A flaw was found in Keycloak. The Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) endpoint does not properly validate authorization when processing the deprecated defaultRoles field. An authenticated attacker with client creation privileges or an Initial Access Token (IAT) can inject excessive roles into the realm's default roles configuration. This causes clients across the realm to generate bloated access tokens, resulting in performance and memory degradation that can lead to a Denial of Service (DoS). | ||||
| CVE-2026-107623 | 1 Redhat | 4 Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak, Red Hat Single Sign On and 1 more | 2026-11-06 | 4.3 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the OIDC Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) component of Keycloak. A bug in the response serialization causes the backchannel logout offline token revocation setting to be omitted from responses. When a client performs a standard update, this missing information causes the setting to be silently disabled. As a result, offline tokens may remain valid even after a user session is terminated via backchannel logout. | ||||
| CVE-2026-94001 | 1 Redhat | 2 Build Keycloak, Red Hat Single Sign On | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the Admin REST API of Keycloak, an open-source identity and access management solution. The endpoint used for deleting user credentials does not correctly check for fine-grained reset-password permissions. This allows a delegated administrator, who should be restricted from resetting passwords, to delete a user's password credentials, resulting in the user being unable to log in. | ||||
| CVE-2026-94000 | 1 Redhat | 4 Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak, Red Hat Single Sign On and 1 more | 2026-11-06 | 6.6 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the Admin REST API of Keycloak, an open-source identity and access management solution. The issue occurs in the group-membership endpoints where the system fails to check if a group grants administrative privileges before allowing a user to be added. This allows a delegated administrator with limited permissions to add themselves to a high-privilege group, potentially gaining full control over the entire realm. | ||||
| CVE-2026-93999 | 1 Redhat | 4 Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak, Red Hat Single Sign On and 1 more | 2026-11-06 | 4.2 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the OIDC protocol implementation of Keycloak, an open-source identity and access management solution. The issue occurs during the token refresh process when the server restores requested audiences from stored client IDs. Keycloak fails to verify if the target audience client is still enabled before issuing a new access token. This allows an application with an existing refresh token to continue obtaining valid access tokens for a disabled client, potentially bypassing administrative access controls for resource servers that rely on offline JWT validation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-92856 | 1 Redhat | 2 Build Keycloak, Red Hat Single Sign On | 2026-11-06 | 4.9 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the SAML brokering component of Keycloak, an identity and access management solution. The issue occurs when Keycloak acts as an intermediary between an upstream identity provider and downstream services. Keycloak fails to respect specific security instructions called ProxyRestrictions in the login messages it receives. This allows a user to log into downstream services even when the original identity provider explicitly forbade further sharing of the login session. As a result, users can bypass security boundaries intended to limit where their identity can be used. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18208 | 1 Redhat | 8 Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak, Data Grid and 5 more | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the OIDC token introspection endpoint of the keycloak-services component. Keycloak is an open-source identity and access management solution used to secure modern applications and services. The issue occurs when a confidential client, configured to receive signed JWT introspection responses, attempts to introspect a token issued for a different audience. Although the endpoint correctly identifies the token as inactive for that client, it still returns the full set of token claims within a signed JWT field. This allows an unauthorized client to bypass audience-based restrictions and access sensitive information contained in the token. | ||||
| CVE-2026-18203 | 1 Redhat | 8 Build Keycloak, Build Of Keycloak, Data Grid and 5 more | 2026-11-06 | 6.5 Medium |
| A flaw was found in the group policy evaluation logic of Keycloak, an identity and access management solution. When a group policy is set to extend permissions to child groups, the system incorrectly uses a simple text-based prefix check to verify group membership. This allows a user who belongs to a different group with a similar starting name to bypass security checks and gain unauthorized access to administrative functions or protected resources. | ||||