PULSE
FEED
ransomsilentransomgroup reclama a M... C... · Not Foundransomqilin reclama a United Restaurant Supply · US · Hospitalityransombravox reclama a AMSAM · FR · Not Foundransombravox reclama a Barrow & Grimm · US · Not Foundransomsilentransomgroup reclama a M...r · Not Foundransomsilentransomgroup reclama a Kirkland & Ellis LLP · US · Professional Servicesransomakira reclama a Bethany Press International · Retail & E-Commerceransomakira reclama a Medienwerkstatt · DE · Educationransomakira reclama a Annapath · Not Foundransomrhysida reclama a DR.SCHNELL GmbH & Co. KGaA · DE · Manufacturingransomqilin reclama a Airtificial · Technologyransomqilin reclama a Bathurst RSL · AU · Hospitalityransomqilin reclama a Creative Universe · AU · Otherransomeverest reclama a PWC · GB · Professional Servicesransomsilentransomgroup reclama a M... C... · Not Foundransomqilin reclama a United Restaurant Supply · US · Hospitalityransombravox reclama a AMSAM · FR · Not Foundransombravox reclama a Barrow & Grimm · US · Not Foundransomsilentransomgroup reclama a M...r · Not Foundransomsilentransomgroup reclama a Kirkland & Ellis LLP · US · Professional Servicesransomakira reclama a Bethany Press International · Retail & E-Commerceransomakira reclama a Medienwerkstatt · DE · Educationransomakira reclama a Annapath · Not Foundransomrhysida reclama a DR.SCHNELL GmbH & Co. KGaA · DE · Manufacturingransomqilin reclama a Airtificial · Technologyransomqilin reclama a Bathurst RSL · AU · Hospitalityransomqilin reclama a Creative Universe · AU · Otherransomeverest reclama a PWC · GB · Professional Services
CVE Watch401,677 in full archive

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

  • Critical
    3,401
  • High
    15,534
  • Medium
    14,799
  • Low
    1,422
Filters
Filters

Window

Severity

Flags

Vulnerabilities8,081–8,120 · 401,677
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2020-3657—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2019-14974—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2010-3343—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2005-1211—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2015-1650—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2014-6035—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2002-0283—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2022-44507.5 HIG
98.1%
——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.8d
CVE-2010-0252—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2025-32011—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2018-6849—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2007-1214—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2020-6286—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2016-0998—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2006-3431—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2013-0020—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2016-1000—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2024-24116—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2004-0846—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2010-0269—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2010-3329—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2009-0549—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2016-0997—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2009-3976—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2022-29034—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2019-6225—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2022-47945—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2018-0792—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2009-1529—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2007-1201—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2026-1492—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2018-8266—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2015-8277—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2008-4109—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2009-0100—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2010-0211—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2006-1540—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2010-0817—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2013-0946—
98.1%
——29——
CVE-2012-4914—
98.1%
——29——