Export limit exceeded: 425713 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (425713 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-121497 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Askany | 2026-11-12 | 9.8 Critical |
| The AskAny WordPress plugin before 2.2.0 does not validate the extension or content of files attached to chat messages, trusting the browser-supplied file type instead, which allows unauthenticated users to upload PHP files and execute arbitrary code when visitor attachments are enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2026-119035 | 2026-11-12 | 6.4 Medium | ||
| The Schema & Structured Data for WP & AMP WordPress plugin before 1.70 does not safely encode its structured data output when the Pretty Print option is enabled, allowing users with a role as low as Contributor to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks when the site maps a schema property to a custom field. | ||||
| CVE-2026-111579 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Forminator Forms | 2026-11-12 | 8.1 High |
| The Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.58.4 does not enforce payment on the server side when a form's configured payment gateway is unavailable, allowing unauthenticated visitors to complete a payment-gated User Registration form without paying and be assigned the form's configured role, up to administrator, after the gateway has been connected and later disconnected. | ||||
| CVE-2026-115733 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Printaura Woocommerce Api | 2026-11-12 | 9.1 Critical |
| The Printaura-Woocommerce WordPress plugin through 4.0.2 does not properly restrict access to the WooCommerce REST API, causing every WooCommerce REST route to accept unauthenticated requests, which allows unauthenticated attackers to read and modify store data including customer orders and personal information, store and payment settings, and webhooks. | ||||
| CVE-2025-15712 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Live Composer | 2026-11-12 | 3.5 Low |
| The Live Composer WordPress plugin before 2.1.24 does not sanitise and escape some of its staff member settings before outputting them in pages, which could allow high-privilege users such as administrators to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (e.g. in multisite setups). | ||||
| CVE-2025-15714 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Live Composer | 2026-11-12 | 3.5 Low |
| The Live Composer WordPress plugin before 2.1.24 does not sanitise and escape some of its Button module settings before outputting them on the front end, which could allow high-privilege users such as administrators to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (e.g. in multisite setups). | ||||
| CVE-2026-118439 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Limit Login Attempts Reloaded | 2026-11-12 | 4.1 Medium |
| The Limit Login Attempts Security WordPress plugin before 3.4.2 does not validate the destination of a server-side request built from a user-supplied setup value, allowing users with administrator privileges to make the site issue requests to arbitrary hosts, including internal ones (SSRF). | ||||
| CVE-2026-109873 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The User Registration & Membership WordPress plugin before 5.3.2 does not enforce its payment-before-login restriction when a registration is submitted without a membership selection, allowing unauthenticated users to create an account on a payment-gated registration form and log in without completing payment. | ||||
| CVE-2026-109871 | 2026-11-12 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| The User Registration & Membership WordPress plugin before 5.3.2 does not verify that a payment has actually been completed before extending a paid membership subscription, allowing authenticated users with an active paid subscription to renew it indefinitely without paying. | ||||
| CVE-2026-57845 | 1 Huggingface | 1 Datasets | 2026-11-12 | 8.8 High |
| Hugging Face Datasets before 5.2.0 contains an insecure deserialization vulnerability that allows attackers to execute arbitrary Python code by crafting a malicious pickle file loaded through the deprecated pandas packaged builder. Attackers can supply a pickle-backed dataset that is processed by Pandas._generate_tables via pandas.read_pickle() without validation, so when a victim calls datasets.load_dataset("pandas", data_files=...), the embedded __reduce__ payload executes code with the victim process's privileges. | ||||
| CVE-2026-63980 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-11-12 | 7.5 High |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/handshake: Use spin_lock_bh for hn_lock nvmet_tcp_state_change(), a socket callback that runs in BH context, can reach handshake_req_cancel() via nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue() and tls_handshake_cancel(). handshake_req_cancel() acquires hn->hn_lock with plain spin_lock(). If a process-context thread on the same CPU holds hn->hn_lock when a softirq invokes the cancel path, the lock attempt deadlocks. This is the only caller that invokes tls_handshake_cancel() from BH context; every other consumer calls it from process context. Deferring the cancel to process context in the NVMe target is not straightforward: nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue() must call tls_handshake_cancel() atomically with its state transition to DISCONNECTING. If the cancel were deferred, the handshake completion callback could fire in the window before the cancel runs, observe the unexpected state, and return without dropping its kref on the queue. Reworking that interlock is considerably more invasive than hardening the handshake lock. Convert all hn->hn_lock acquisitions from spin_lock/spin_unlock to spin_lock_bh/spin_unlock_bh so the lock is never taken with softirqs enabled. | ||||
| CVE-2026-63979 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2026-11-12 | 9.8 Critical |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/handshake: hand off the pinned file reference to accept_doit handshake_req_next() removes the request from the per-net pending list and drops hn_lock before handshake_nl_accept_doit() reads req->hr_sk->sk_socket and dereferences sock->file (once in FD_PREPARE() and again in get_file()). In that window a consumer running tls_handshake_cancel() followed by sockfd_put() (svc_sock_free) or __fput_sync() (xs_reset_transport) releases sock->file. sock_release() then runs sock_orphan(), zeroing sk_socket, and frees the struct socket. The accept-side code either reads NULL through sk_socket or chases freed memory. The submit-side sock_hold() does not prevent this. sk_refcnt protects struct sock, but struct socket and sock->file are independently refcounted via the file descriptor the consumer owns. Pinning sk leaves sock and sock->file unprotected. Retarget the accept-side dereferences at req->hr_file, which was pinned at submit time, instead of req->hr_sk->sk_socket->file. Pinning on its own is not sufficient: a consumer that cancels between handshake_req_next() returning and accept_doit reaching FD_PREPARE() takes the !remove_pending() branch in handshake_req_cancel() and drops hr_file before the accept side takes its own reference. Hand off an additional file reference inside handshake_req_next(), under hn_lock, so the accept side operates on a reference that no concurrent handshake_req_cancel() can revoke. FD_PREPARE() consumes that handed-off reference, either by transferring it to the new fd in fd_publish() or by dropping it in the cleanup destructor on error; the explicit get_file() that previously balanced FD_PREPARE() is therefore redundant and goes away. Update handshake_req_cancel_test2 and _test3 to simulate the FD_PREPARE() consumption with an fput() so the kunit file-count assertions stay balanced. | ||||
| CVE-2026-15785 | 2026-11-12 | 6.1 Medium | ||
| The Joinchat – Enhanced "click to chat" plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via '{HREF}' Dynamic Variable via Query Parameter Name in all versions up to, and including, 6.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. Exploitation requires that an administrator has configured a telephone number and included the {HREF} dynamic variable in the Call-to-Action text. | ||||
| CVE-2026-125448 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kaliforms Kali Forms kali-forms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Kali Forms: from n/a through 2.4.31. | ||||
| CVE-2026-125845 | 2026-11-12 | 8.8 High | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in webriti vdequator vdequator allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects vdequator: from n/a through 1.2.7. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126722 | 2026-11-12 | N/A | ||
| Rooxis RXR-12 Wi-Fi router contains an undocumented telnet backdoor daemon (/usr/bin/telnetd_startup) that, upon receipt of a precomputed AES-128-CBC magic packet using a firmware-wide static key and IV, enables telnet service with default credentials, providing remote root access. Firmware 20260813_c2169ea5 removes the UDP listener entirely, and users can update through their local web interface. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126223 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortianalyzer, Fortianalyzercloud, Fortimanager and 1 more | 2026-11-12 | 7.2 High |
| A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11 may allow an authenticated administrator to execute unauthorized code or commands or cause a denial of service via specially crafted JSON-RPC requests. | ||||
| CVE-2026-126224 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortianalyzer, Fortianalyzercloud, Fortimanager and 1 more | 2026-11-12 | 7.2 High |
| A improper neutralization of argument delimiters in a command ('argument injection') vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12, FortiManager 8.0.0, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.0, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an authenticated privileged admin user to execute unauthorized code or commands. | ||||
| CVE-2026-123134 | 2026-11-12 | 8.8 High | ||
| The Smoove abandoned cart trigger for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 4.3.6 does not sanitise and escape abandoned-cart data submitted by visitors before outputting it in the admin dashboard, allowing unauthenticated users to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks against administrators. | ||||
| CVE-2026-121873 | 2026-11-12 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The Redirection for Contact Form 7 WordPress plugin before 3.2.16 does not verify ownership of the email address supplied through its data request form action and by default records the resulting request as already confirmed, allowing unauthenticated visitors to create verified WordPress personal data erasure or export requests for addresses they do not control. | ||||