Export limit exceeded: 403660 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (1897 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-46582 | 1 Zte | 1 Zxmp M721 | 2026-04-15 | 7.7 High |
| A private key disclosure vulnerability exists in ZTE's ZXMP M721 product. A low-privileged user can bypass authorization checks to view the device's communication private key, resulting in key exposure and impacting communication security. | ||||
| CVE-2025-41256 | 2026-04-15 | 7.4 High | ||
| Cyberduck and Mountain Duck improper handle TLS certificate pinning for untrusted certificates (e.g., self-signed), since the certificate fingerprint is stored as SHA-1, although SHA-1 is considered weak. This issue affects Cyberduck: through 9.1.6; Mountain Duck: through 4.17.5. | ||||
| CVE-2025-64304 | 3 Apple, Fujitv, Google | 3 Ios, Fod App, Android | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| "FOD" App uses hard-coded cryptographic keys, which may allow a local unauthenticated attacker to retrieve the cryptographic keys. | ||||
| CVE-2023-5342 | 1 Redhat | 1 Enterprise Linux | 2026-04-15 | 4.1 Medium |
| The Fedora Secure Boot CA certificate shipped with shim in Fedora was expired which could lead to old or invalid signed boot components being loaded. | ||||
| CVE-2025-32874 | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High | ||
| An issue was discovered in Kaseya Rapid Fire Tools Network Detective through 2.0.16.0. A vulnerability exists in the EncryptionUtil class because symmetric encryption is implemented in a deterministic and non-randomized fashion. The method Encrypt(byte[] clearData) derives both the encryption key and the IV from a fixed, hardcoded input by using a static salt value. As a result, identical plaintext inputs always produce identical ciphertext outputs. This is true for both FIPS and non-FIPS generated passwords. In other words, there is a cryptographic implementation flaw in the password encryption mechanism. Although there are multiple encryption methods grouped under FIPS and non-FIPS classifications, the logic consistently results in predictable and reversible encrypted outputs due to the lack of per-operation randomness and encryption authentication. | ||||
| CVE-2025-3200 | 2026-04-15 | 9.1 Critical | ||
| An unauthenticated remote attacker could exploit the used, insecure TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 protocols to intercept and manipulate encrypted communications between the Com-Server and connected systems. | ||||
| CVE-2023-7003 | 1 Sciener | 1 Ttlock App | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium |
| The AES key utilized in the pairing process between a lock using Sciener firmware and a wireless keypad is not unique, and can be reused to compromise other locks using the Sciener firmware. | ||||
| CVE-2024-1224 | 2026-04-15 | 7.1 High | ||
| This vulnerability exists in USB Pratirodh due to the usage of a weaker cryptographic algorithm (hash) SHA1 in user login component. A local attacker with administrative privileges could exploit this vulnerability to obtain the password of USB Pratirodh on the targeted system. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow the attacker to take control of the application and modify the access control of registered users or devices on the targeted system. | ||||
| CVE-2024-21530 | 1 Cocoon | 1 Cocoon | 2026-04-15 | 4.5 Medium |
| Versions of the package cocoon before 0.4.0 are vulnerable to Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption when the encrypt, wrap, and dump functions are sequentially called. An attacker can generate the same ciphertext by creating a new encrypted message with the same cocoon object. **Note:** The issue does NOT affect objects created with Cocoon::new which utilizes ThreadRng. | ||||
| CVE-2025-31130 | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium | ||
| gitoxide is an implementation of git written in Rust. Before 0.42.0, gitoxide uses SHA-1 hash implementations without any collision detection, leaving it vulnerable to hash collision attacks. gitoxide uses the sha1_smol or sha1 crate, both of which implement standard SHA-1 without any mitigations for collision attacks. This means that two distinct Git objects with colliding SHA-1 hashes would break the Git object model and integrity checks when used with gitoxide. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.42.0. | ||||
| CVE-2024-26317 | 2026-04-15 | 6.1 Medium | ||
| In illumos illumos-gate 2024-02-15, an error occurs in the elliptic curve point addition algorithm that uses mixed Jacobian-affine coordinates, causing the algorithm to yield a result of POINT_AT_INFINITY when it should not. A man-in-the-middle attacker could use this to interfere with a connection, resulting in an attacked party computing an incorrect shared secret. | ||||
| CVE-2025-6669 | 2026-04-15 | 3.7 Low | ||
| A vulnerability was found in gooaclok819 sublinkX up to 1.8. It has been declared as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file middlewares/jwt.go. The manipulation with the input sublink leads to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The attack can be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 1.9 is able to address this issue. The patch is identified as 778d26aef723daa58df98c8060c43f5bf5d1b10b. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. | ||||
| CVE-2024-28834 | 1 Redhat | 2 Enterprise Linux, Rhel Eus | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium |
| A flaw was found in GnuTLS. The Minerva attack is a cryptographic vulnerability that exploits deterministic behavior in systems like GnuTLS, leading to side-channel leaks. In specific scenarios, such as when using the GNUTLS_PRIVKEY_FLAG_REPRODUCIBLE flag, it can result in a noticeable step in nonce size from 513 to 512 bits, exposing a potential timing side-channel. | ||||
| CVE-2024-30407 | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High | ||
| The Use of a Hard-coded Cryptographic Key vulnerability in Juniper Networks Juniper Cloud Native Router (JCNR) and containerized routing Protocol Deamon (cRPD) products allows an attacker to perform Person-in-the-Middle (PitM) attacks which results in complete compromise of the container. Due to hardcoded SSH host keys being present on the container, a PitM attacker can intercept SSH traffic without being detected. This issue affects Juniper Networks JCNR: * All versions before 23.4. This issue affects Juniper Networks cRPD: * All versions before 23.4R1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-34914 | 1 Php-censor | 1 Php-censor | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium |
| php-censor v2.1.4 and fixed in v.2.1.5 was discovered to utilize a weak hashing algorithm for its remember_key value. This allows attackers to bruteforce to bruteforce the remember_key value to gain access to accounts that have checked "remember me" when logging in. | ||||
| CVE-2024-36440 | 1 Swissphone | 1 Dical-red | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium |
| An issue was discovered on Swissphone DiCal-RED 4009 devices. An attacker with access to the file /etc/deviceconfig may recover the administrative device password via password-cracking methods, because unsalted MD5 is used. | ||||
| CVE-2025-8625 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 9.8 Critical |
| The Copypress Rest API plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via copyreap_handle_image() Function in versions 1.1 to 1.2. The plugin falls back to a hard-coded JWT signing key when no secret is defined and does not restrict which file types can be fetched and saved as attachments. As a result, unauthenticated attackers can forge a valid token to gain elevated privileges and upload an arbitrary file (e.g. a PHP script) through the image handler, leading to remote code execution. | ||||
| CVE-2024-38867 | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium | ||
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIPROTEC 5 6MD84 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 6MD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MD89 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 6MU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7KE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SA82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SA87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SD82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD84 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SD87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ81 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SJ86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.89), SIPROTEC 5 7SK82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SK85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7SL82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SL87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7SS85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7ST85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7ST86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7SX82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7SX85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UM85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP100) (All versions < V8.90), SIPROTEC 5 7UT82 (CP150) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT86 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7UT87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VE85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP200) (All versions), SIPROTEC 5 7VK87 (CP300) (All versions < V9.65), SIPROTEC 5 7VU85 (CP300) (All versions < V9.64), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BA-2EL (Rev.1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions installed on CP200 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V9.62 installed on CP150 and CP300 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BB-2FO (Rev. 1) (All versions < V8.89 installed on CP100 devices), SIPROTEC 5 Communication Module ETH-BD-2FO (All versions < V9.62), SIPROTEC 5 Compact 7SX800 (CP050) (All versions < V9.64). The affected devices are supporting weak ciphers on several ports (443/tcp for web, 4443/tcp for DIGSI 5 and configurable port for syslog over TLS). This could allow an unauthorized attacker in a man-in-the-middle position to decrypt any data passed over to and from those ports. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48924 | 1 Messagepack | 1 Messagepack-csharp | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| ### Impact When this library is used to deserialize messagepack data from an untrusted source, there is a risk of a denial of service attack by an attacker that sends data contrived to produce hash collisions, leading to large CPU consumption disproportionate to the size of the data being deserialized. This is similar to [a prior advisory](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-7q36-4xx7-xcxf), which provided an inadequate fix for the hash collision part of the vulnerability. ### Patches The following steps are required to mitigate this risk. 1. Upgrade to a version of the library where a fix is available. 1. Review the steps in [this previous advisory](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/security/advisories/GHSA-7q36-4xx7-xcxf) to ensure you have your application configured for untrusted data. ### Workarounds If upgrading MessagePack to a patched version is not an option for you, you may apply a manual workaround as follows: 1. Declare a class that derives from `MessagePackSecurity`. 2. Override the `GetHashCollisionResistantEqualityComparer<T>` method to provide a collision-resistant hash function of your own and avoid calling `base.GetHashCollisionResistantEqualityComparer<T>()`. 3. Configure a `MessagePackSerializerOptions` with an instance of your derived type by calling `WithSecurity` on an existing options object. 4. Use your custom options object for all deserialization operations. This may be by setting the `MessagePackSerializer.DefaultOptions` static property, if you call methods that rely on this default property, and/or by passing in the options object explicitly to any `Deserialize` method. ### References - Learn more about best security practices when reading untrusted data with [MessagePack 1.x](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/tree/v1.x#security) or [MessagePack 2.x](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp#security). - The .NET team's [discussion on hash collision vulnerabilities of their `HashCode` struct](https://github.com/GrabYourPitchforks/runtime/blob/threat_models/docs/design/security/System.HashCode.md). ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * [Start a public discussion](https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp/discussions) * [Email us privately](mailto:andrewarnott@live.com) | ||||
| CVE-2025-66017 | 1 Lfdt-lockness | 1 Cggmp21 | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| CGGMP24 is a state-of-art ECDSA TSS protocol that supports 1-round signing (requires 3 preprocessing rounds), identifiable abort, and a key refresh protocol. In versions 0.6.3 and prior of cggmp21 and version 0.7.0-alpha.1 of cggmp24, presignatures can be used in the way that significantly reduces security. cggmp24 version 0.7.0-alpha.2 release contains API changes that make it impossible to use presignatures in contexts in which it reduces security. | ||||