CVE-2026-19407
Bucket Squatting in Google Cloud Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform SDK for Python versions prior to 1.166.1 allows an attacker to achieve Rem
CVSS
—
No CVSS
EPSS
—
KEV
—
Exploit Today
—
0-100
Published: Sep 15, 2026 · Last modified: Sep 15, 2026 · CWE-330
Not enough EPSS history yet.
Bucket Squatting in Google Cloud Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform SDK for Python versions prior to 1.166.1 allows an attacker to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) and tenant-project token theft.
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2026-539399.1 CRI9.5%
——3OpenIDC/cjose is a C library implementing the Javascript Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE). In versions 0.6.1 through 0.6.2.5, when cjose encrypts a JWE using an AES-CBC-HMAC content-encryption algorithm (`A128CBC-HS256`, `A192CBC-HS384`, or `A256CBC-HS512`) together with any key-management algorithm that generates a fresh content-encryption key (CEK), the CEK is all zero bytes instead of being randomly generated. The resulting JWE is therefore encrypted and authenticated under a fixed, publicly known key, so anyone who obtains the JWE can recover the plaintext and forge or modify the content. This is fixed in version 0.6.2.6 by `_cjose_jwe_set_cek_aes_cbc()` generating the CEK from `RAND_bytes`. A regression test asserts that the `encrypted_key` differs across two encryptions for each AES-CBC-HMAC variant. Until upgrading, for data encrypted with cjose, three options are available. Use an AES-GCM `enc` (`A128GCM` / `A192GCM` / `A256GCM`) instead of an AES-CBC-HMAC `enc`, use `alg=dir` with a caller-supplied CEK, or avoid using cjose for JWE encryption with the affected algorithm pair. These are mitigations for new ciphertexts only; data already encrypted under the zero key remains compromised and should be re-encrypted (and any secrets it contained rotated).5dCVE-2026-795757.5 HIG15.8%
——5The JWT signing secret in yfexam-exam v2.0 is derived from the username and the current month instead of a random server-side key, making the secret key easily obtainable via a bruteforce attack.6dCVE-2026-861875.9 MED12.4%
——4WWBN AVideo generates passwords for external-login accounts using rand() instead of a cryptographic generator, producing only 31-bit integers. Attackers with access to password hashes can recover plaintext passwords in minutes through offline brute-force attacks due to unsalted MD5-based hashing.5dCVE-2026-172745.4 MED14.4%
——4IBM i 7.6, 7.5, 7.4, and 7.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to predictable server seeds.6dCVE-2026-34165.9 MED19.6%
——6The API Publisher component previously used a non-cryptographic pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) to create shared secrets for Webhook HMAC validation. This PRNG lacks sufficient entropy for security-sensitive operations, allowing a sophisticated attacker to predict future secrets. This enables malicious actors to forge event payloads with valid HMAC signatures, bypassing the API Gateway's authenticity verification.
Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to predict shared secrets used for Webhook HMAC validation and forge event payloads with valid signatures. This may enable bypassing API Gateway authenticity checks, leading to unauthorized event injection, data manipulation, or downstream system compromise.2hCVE-2026-660478.1 HIG43.8%
——13ProfilePress (wp-user-avatar) WordPress plugin before 4.17.2 contains an unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to install and activate arbitrary plugins by brute-forcing a weak 32-bit connect token via the ppress_connect_process AJAX handler. Attackers can supply a caller-controlled URL through the file request parameter to trigger silent plugin installation and activation, achieving PHP code execution as the web-server user.7d