Export limit exceeded: 11488 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 10893 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10893 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-53880 | 1 Suse | 3 Manager, Manager Proxy, Manager Server | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| A Path Traversal vulnerability in the tftpsync/add and tftpsync/delete scripts allows a remote attacker on an adjacent network to write or delete files on the filesystem with the privileges of the unprivileged wwwrun user. Although the endpoint is unauthenticated, access is restricted to a list of allowed IP addresses. | ||||
| CVE-2024-30321 | 1 Siemens | 3 Simatic Pcs 7, Simatic Wincc, Simatic Wincc Runtime Professional | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC PCS 7 V9.1 (All versions < V9.1 SP2 UC05), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Professional V18 (All versions < V18 Update 5), SIMATIC WinCC Runtime Professional V19 (All versions < V19 Update 2), SIMATIC WinCC V7.4 (All versions < V7.4 SP1 Update 23), SIMATIC WinCC V7.5 (All versions < V7.5 SP2 Update 17), SIMATIC WinCC V8.0 (All versions < V8.0 Update 5). The affected products do not properly handle certain requests to their web application, which may lead to the leak of privileged information. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to retrieve information such as users and passwords. | ||||
| CVE-2023-50923 | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| In QUIC in RFC 9000, the Latency Spin Bit specification (section 17.4) does not strictly constrain the bit value when the feature is disabled, which might allow remote attackers to construct a covert channel with data represented as changes to the bit value. NOTE: The "Sheridan, S., Keane, A. (2015). In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (ECCWS), University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK." paper says "Modern Internet communication protocols provide an almost infinite number of ways in which data can be hidden or embed whithin seemingly normal network traffic." | ||||
| CVE-2024-30252 | 2026-04-15 | 2.6 Low | ||
| Livemarks is a browser extension that provides RSS feed bookmark folders. Versions of Livemarks prior to 3.7 are vulnerable to cross-site request forgery. A malicious website may be able to coerce the extension to send an authenticated GET request to an arbitrary URL. An authenticated request is a request where the cookies of the browser are sent along with the request. The `subscribe.js` script uses the first parameter from the current URL location as the URL of the RSS feed to subscribe to and checks that the RSS feed is valid XML. `subscribe.js` is accessible by an attacker website due to its use in `subscribe.html`, an HTML page that is declared as a `web_accessible_resource` in `manifest.json`. This issue may lead to `Privilege Escalation`. A CSRF breaks the integrity of servers running on a private network. A user of the browser extension may have a private server with dangerous functionality, which is assumed to be safe due to network segmentation. Upon receiving an authenticated request instantiated from an attacker, this integrity is broken. Version 3.7 fixes this issue by removing subscribe.html from `web_accessible_resources`. | ||||
| CVE-2023-7065 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 5.4 Medium |
| The Stop Spammers Security | Block Spam Users, Comments, Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2024.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the sfs_process AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to add arbitrary IPs to the plugin's allowlist and blocklist via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-31328 | 2026-04-15 | 4.6 Medium | ||
| SAP Learning Solution is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), allowing an attacker to trick authenticated user into sending unintended requests to the server. GET-based OData function is named in a way that it violates the expected behaviour. This issue could impact both the confidentiality and integrity of the application without affecting the availability. | ||||
| CVE-2025-30014 | 2026-04-15 | 7.7 High | ||
| SAP Capital Yield Tax Management has directory traversal vulnerability due to insufficient path validation. This could allow an attacker with low privileges to read files from directory which they don�t have access to, hence causing a high impact on confidentiality. Integrity and Availability are not affected. | ||||
| CVE-2025-27792 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Opal is OBiBa’s core database application for biobanks or epidemiological studies. Prior to version 5.1.1, the protections against cross-site request forgery (CSRF) were insufficient application-wide. The referrer header is checked, and if it is invalid, the server returns 403. However, the referrer header can be dropped from CSRF requests using `<meta name="referrer" content="never">`, effectively bypassing this protection. Version 5.1.1 contains a patch for the issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-0847 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| The 5280 Bootstrap Modal Contact Form plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation in class-sbmm-list-table.php. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bulk delete messages via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-27579 | 2026-04-15 | 5.4 Medium | ||
| In Bitaxe ESP-Miner before 2.5.0 with AxeOS, one can use an /api/system CSRF attack to update the payout address (aka stratumUser) for a Bitaxe Bitcoin miner, or change the frequency and voltage settings. | ||||
| CVE-2025-58999 | 2 Loopus, Wordpress | 2 Wp Attractive Donations System, Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in loopus WP Attractive Donations System - Easy Stripe & Paypal donations WP_AttractiveDonationsSystem allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Attractive Donations System - Easy Stripe & Paypal donations: from n/a through <= 1.25. | ||||
| CVE-2024-0892 | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| The Schema App Structured Data plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the MarkUpdate function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update and delete post metadata via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-59099 | 1 Dormakaba | 1 Access Manager | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| The Access Manager is using the open source web server CompactWebServer written in C#. This web server is affected by a path traversal vulnerability, which allows an attacker to directly access files via simple GET requests without prior authentication. Hence, it is possible to retrieve all files stored on the file system, including the SQLite database Database.sq3, containing badge information and the corresponding PIN codes. Additionally, when trying to access certain files, the web server crashes and becomes unreachable for about 60 seconds. This can be abused to continuously send the request and cause denial of service. | ||||
| CVE-2024-11118 | 1 Bilbud | 1 404 Error Monitor | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium |
| The 404 Error Monitor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the updatePluginSettings() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to make changes to plugin settings and clear up all the error logs via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2024-11136 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| The default TCL Camera application exposes a provider vulnerable to path traversal vulnerability. Malicious application can supply malicious URI path and delete arbitrary files from user’s external storage. | ||||
| CVE-2024-11206 | 1 Tecno | 1 Com.transsion.phoenix | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| Unauthorized access vulnerability in the mobile application (com.transsion.phoenix) can lead to the leakage of user information. | ||||
| CVE-2025-59163 | 1 Safedep | 1 Vet | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| vet is an open source software supply chain security tool. Versions 1.12.4 and below are vulnerable to a DNS rebinding attack due to lack of HTTP Host and Origin header validation. Data from the vet scan sqlite3 database may be exposed to remote attackers when vet is used as an MCP server in SSE mode with default ports through the sqlite3 query MCP tool. This issue is fixed in version 1.12.5. | ||||
| CVE-2025-60208 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 8.8 High |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Tusko Trush Advanced Custom Fields : CPT Options Pages acf-cpt-options-pages allows Object Injection.This issue affects Advanced Custom Fields : CPT Options Pages: from n/a through <= 2.0.9. | ||||
| CVE-2025-60535 | 1 Wallosapp | 1 Wallos | 2026-04-15 | 7.3 High |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the component /endpoints/currency/currency of Wallos v4.1.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary operations via a crafted GET request. | ||||
| CVE-2025-24358 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| gorilla/csrf provides Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) prevention middleware for Go web applications & services. Prior to 1.7.2, gorilla/csrf does not validate the Origin header against an allowlist. Its executes its validation of the Referer header for cross-origin requests only when it believes the request is being served over TLS. It determines this by inspecting the r.URL.Scheme value. However, this value is never populated for "server" requests per the Go spec, and so this check does not run in practice. This vulnerability allows an attacker who has gained XSS on a subdomain or top level domain to perform authenticated form submissions against gorilla/csrf protected targets that share the same top level domain. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.7.2. | ||||