Vulnerabilities exploitable today
401,677in current view
Single score combining CVSS, KEV membership and EPSS. Every CVE with its own record — timeline from publication to active exploitation.
In KEV catalog1,754
New KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,666
Distribution · last window
- Critical3,401
- High15,534
- Medium14,799
- Low1,422
Filters
Window
Severity
Flags
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2014-6035—98.1%
——29——CVE-2022-44507.5 HIG98.1%
——29The function PEM_read_bio_ex() reads a PEM file from a BIO and parses and
decodes the "name" (e.g. "CERTIFICATE"), any header data and the payload data.
If the function succeeds then the "name_out", "header" and "data" arguments are
populated with pointers to buffers containing the relevant decoded data. The
caller is responsible for freeing those buffers. It is possible to construct a
PEM file that results in 0 bytes of payload data. In this case PEM_read_bio_ex()
will return a failure code but will populate the header argument with a pointer
to a buffer that has already been freed. If the caller also frees this buffer
then a double free will occur. This will most likely lead to a crash. This
could be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to supply malicious PEM
files for parsing to achieve a denial of service attack.
The functions PEM_read_bio() and PEM_read() are simple wrappers around
PEM_read_bio_ex() and therefore these functions are also directly affected.
These functions are also called indirectly by a number of other OpenSSL
functions including PEM_X509_INFO_read_bio_ex() and
SSL_CTX_use_serverinfo_file() which are also vulnerable. Some OpenSSL internal
uses of these functions are not vulnerable because the caller does not free the
header argument if PEM_read_bio_ex() returns a failure code. These locations
include the PEM_read_bio_TYPE() functions as well as the decoders introduced in
OpenSSL 3.0.
The OpenSSL asn1parse command line application is also impacted by this issue.8dCVE-2013-5015—98.1%
——29——CVE-2018-12840—98.1%
——29——CVE-2009-3976—98.1%
——29——CVE-2014-0289—98.1%
——29——CVE-2008-4109—98.1%
——29——CVE-2017-0106—98.1%
——29——CVE-2006-1540—98.1%
——29——CVE-2007-3033—98.1%
——29——CVE-2009-0100—98.1%
——29——CVE-2009-1529—98.1%
——29——CVE-2023-5372—98.1%
——29——CVE-2004-0846—98.1%
——29——CVE-2011-3410—98.1%
——29——CVE-2010-0034—98.1%
——29——CVE-2021-31252—98.1%
——29——CVE-2007-1201—98.1%
——29——CVE-2015-0008—98.1%
——29——CVE-2014-1789—98.1%
——29——CVE-2016-0997—98.1%
——29——CVE-1999-0739—98.1%
——29——CVE-2010-0269—98.1%
——29——CVE-2010-0211—98.1%
——29——CVE-2026-1492—98.1%
——29——CVE-2017-0140—98.1%
——29——CVE-2022-29034—98.1%
——29——CVE-2009-0950—98.1%
——29——CVE-2012-4914—98.1%
——29——CVE-2018-19660—98.1%
——29——CVE-2014-6363—98.1%
——29——CVE-2022-45768—98.1%
——29——CVE-2023-2648—98.1%
——29——CVE-2011-4642—98.1%
——29——CVE-2013-0946—98.1%
——29——CVE-2024-3429—98.1%
——29——CVE-2019-6225—98.1%
——29——CVE-2024-5585—98.1%
——29——CVE-2006-3431—98.1%
——29——CVE-2023-31222—98.1%
——29——