Export limit exceeded: 357323 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (357323 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44802 | 1 Microsoft | 18 Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2, Windows 10 21h2 and 15 more | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Use after free in Windows DWM Core Library allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. | ||||
| CVE-2026-44804 | 1 Microsoft | 2 Windows 11 26h1, Windows 11 26h1 | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Use after free in Windows DWM Core Library allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47959 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47912 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47914 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47913 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47920 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47921 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47919 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47952 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47915 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47918 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47916 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.8 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by a Use After Free vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. | ||||
| CVE-2026-47937 | 1 Adobe | 1 Acrobat Reader | 2026-06-10 | 7.4 High |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30365, 26.001.21651 and earlier are affected by an Uncontrolled Search Path Element vulnerability that could result in arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user. Exploitation of this issue requires user interaction in that a victim must open a malicious file. Scope is changed. | ||||
| CVE-2026-44963 | 1 Veeam | 1 Backup And Replication | 2026-06-10 | N/A |
| A vulnerability allowing remote code execution (RCE) on the Backup Server by an authenticated domain user. | ||||
| CVE-2026-1784 | 1 Redhat | 2 Openshift, Openshift Container Platform | 2026-06-10 | 8.8 High |
| The Route OpenShift resource allows to define routes to make pods reachable at a subdomain through HAProxy. It was found that the checks performed on the spec.path YAML stanza in a Route document was insufficient and could allow a controlled injection of the HAProxy configuration. | ||||
| CVE-2026-9076 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-06-10 | 7.5 High |
| Issue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap) processes attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK cipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key(). Impact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information disclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker. The key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the RFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped key length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the block length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from an OID carried in the attacker's PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no requirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects a stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer containing the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes specified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen. Applications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password() (equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS data are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the over-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication succeeds. The over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so there is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the allocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal allocator. The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-7383 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-06-10 | 8.1 High |
| Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap buffer overflow. Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour. In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and UNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts for UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches around 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30 characters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and the subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the one-byte allocation. X.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(), whose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID size limits cap the input length; no network protocol or certificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow. Triggering the bug requires an application that calls ASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers a custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with attacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more. For these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. | ||||
| CVE-2026-45446 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-06-10 | 4.8 Medium |
| Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. | ||||
| CVE-2026-45445 | 1 Openssl | 1 Openssl | 2026-06-10 | 7.5 High |
| Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message. OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV. If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV) pair. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case. Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher() one-shot API are vulnerable. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. | ||||