Export limit exceeded: 23645 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (23645 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-28033 | 2026-04-15 | 7.3 High | ||
| OS command injection vulnerability exists in WebProxy 1.7.8 and 1.7.9, which may allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute an arbitrary OS command with the privilege of the running web server. Note that the developer was unreachable, therefore, users should consider stop using WebProxy 1.7.8 and 1.7.9. | ||||
| CVE-2025-54595 | 2026-04-15 | 7.3 High | ||
| Pearcleaner is a free, source-available and fair-code licensed mac app cleaner. The PearcleanerHelper is a privileged helper tool bundled with the Pearcleaner application. It is registered and activated only after the user approves a system prompt to allow privileged operations. Upon approval, the helper is configured as a LaunchDaemon and runs with root privileges. In versions 4.4.0 through 4.5.1, the helper registers an XPC service (com.alienator88.Pearcleaner.PearcleanerHelper) and accepts unauthenticated connections from any local process. It exposes a method that executes arbitrary shell commands. This allows any local unprivileged user to escalate privileges to root once the helper is approved and active. This issue is fixed in version 4.5.2. | ||||
| CVE-2025-55037 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection') issue exists in TkEasyGUI versions prior to v1.0.22. If this vulnerability is exploited, an arbitrary OS command may be executed by a remote unauthenticated attacker if the settings are configured to construct messages from external sources. | ||||
| CVE-2023-5406 | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium | ||
| Server communication with a controller can lead to remote code execution using a specially crafted message from the controller. See Honeywell Security Notification for recommendations on upgrading and versioning. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48459 | 1 Tenda | 1 Ax2 Pro Firmware | 2026-04-15 | 7.3 High |
| A command execution vulnerability exists in the AX2 Pro home router produced by Shenzhen Tenda Technology Co., Ltd. (Jixiang Tenda) v.DI_7003G-19.12.24A1V16.03.29.50;V16.03.29.50;V16.03.29.50. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by constructing a malicious payload to execute commands and further obtain shell access to the router's file system with the highest privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2025-55048 | 2026-04-15 | 9.8 Critical | ||
| Multiple CWE-78 | ||||
| CVE-2025-55118 | 1 Bmc | 1 Control-m/agent | 2026-04-15 | 8.9 High |
| Memory corruptions can be remotely triggered in the Control-M/Agent when SSL/TLS communication is configured. The issue occurs in the following cases: * Control-M/Agent 9.0.20: SSL/TLS configuration is set to the non-default setting "use_openssl=n"; * Control-M/Agent 9.0.21 and 9.0.22: Agent router configuration uses the non-default settings "JAVA_AR=N" and "use_openssl=n" | ||||
| CVE-2025-26403 | 1 Intel | 2 Xeon, Xeon Processors | 2026-04-15 | 7.2 High |
| Out-of-bounds write in the memory subsystem for some Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6 processors when using Intel(R) SGX or Intel(R) TDX may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access. | ||||
| CVE-2025-57771 | 1 Roocode | 1 Roo-code | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High |
| Roo Code is an AI-powered autonomous coding agent that lives in users' editors. In versions prior to 3.25.5, Roo-Code fails to properly handle process substitution and single ampersand characters in the command parsing logic for auto-execute commands. If a user has enabled auto-approved execution for a command such as ls, an attacker who can submit crafted prompts to the agent may inject arbitrary commands to be executed alongside the intended command. Exploitation requires attacker access to submit prompts and for the user to have enabled auto-approved command execution, which is disabled by default. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code. The issue is fixed in version 3.25.5. | ||||
| CVE-2025-23049 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Meridian Technique Materialise OrthoView through 7.5.1 allows OS Command Injection when servlet sharing is enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2024-27980 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Due to the improper handling of batch files in child_process.spawn / child_process.spawnSync, a malicious command line argument can inject arbitrary commands and achieve code execution even if the shell option is not enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2025-11900 | 1 Hgiga | 1 Isherlock | 2026-04-15 | 9.8 Critical |
| The iSherlock developed by HGiga has an OS Command Injection vulnerability, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to inject arbitrary OS commands and execute them on the server. | ||||
| CVE-2025-11202 | 1 Win-cli-mcp-server | 1 Win-cli-mcp-server | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| win-cli-mcp-server resolveCommandPath Command Injection Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of win-cli-mcp-server. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the resolveCommandPath method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied string before using it to execute a system call. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-27787. | ||||
| CVE-2025-57799 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| StreamVault is a multi-platform video parsing and downloading tool. Prior to version 250822, after logging into the StreamVault-system, an attacker can modify certain system parameters, construct malicious commands, execute command injection attacks against the system, and ultimately gain server privileges. Users of all versions of the StreamVault system to date who have not modified their background passwords or use weak passwords are at risk of having their systems taken over via remote command execution. This issue has been patched in version 250822. | ||||
| CVE-2025-23237 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS Command Injection') issue exists in UD-LT2 firmware Ver.1.00.008_SE and earlier. If a user logs in to CLI of the affected product, an arbitrary OS command may be executed. | ||||
| CVE-2023-47105 | 1 Chaosblade | 1 Chaosblade | 2026-04-15 | 8.6 High |
| exec.CommandContext in Chaosblade 0.3 through 1.7.3, when server mode is used, allows OS command execution via the cmd parameter without authentication. | ||||
| CVE-2023-4856 | 2026-04-15 | 8.8 High | ||
| A format string vulnerability was identified in SMM/SMM2 and FPC that could allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary commands on a specific API endpoint. | ||||
| CVE-2023-4855 | 2026-04-15 | 7.2 High | ||
| A command injection vulnerability was identified in SMM/SMM2 and FPC that could allow an authenticated user with elevated privileges to execute unauthorized commands via IPMI. | ||||
| CVE-2025-24366 | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High | ||
| SFTPGo is an open source, event-driven file transfer solution. SFTPGo supports execution of a defined set of commands via SSH. Besides a set of default commands some optional commands can be activated, one of them being `rsync`. It is disabled in the default configuration and it is limited to the local filesystem, it does not work with cloud/remote storage backends. Due to missing sanitization of the client provided `rsync` command, an authenticated remote user can use some options of the rsync command to read or write files with the permissions of the SFTPGo server process. This issue was fixed in version v2.6.5 by checking the client provided arguments. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2025-11148 | 1 Check-branches Project | 1 Check-branches | 2026-04-15 | 9.8 Critical |
| All versions of the package check-branches are vulnerable to Command Injection check-branches is a command-line tool that is interacted with locally, or via CI, to confirm no conflicts exist in git branches. However, the library follows these conventions which can be abused: 1. It trusts branch names as they are (plain text) 2. It spawns git commands by concatenating user input Since a branch name is potentially a user input - as users can create branches remotely via pull requests, or simply due to privileged access to a repository - it can effectively be abused to run any command. | ||||