CVE Watch401,738 in full archive

Vulnerabilities exploitable today

16,381in 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 ≥ 701,667

Distribution · last window

Critical
3,399
High
15,526
Medium
14,782
Low
1,421

Filters

Window

Severity

Flags

Vulnerabilities10,561–10,600 · 16,381

CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.

CVE-2026-1064944.4 MED

20.0%

——6Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.17.8, the @backstage/backend-defaults package is affected by improper input validation in cloud storage url readers. An attacker with write access to a cloud storage bucket used by Backstage could craft object names that could collide with protected files in the output directory. In certain deployment configurations, this could lead to content injection. This issue is fixed in version 0.17.8.1d CVE-2026-1064933.0 LOW

16.6%

——5Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 1.54.6, cloud storage catalog providers did not sufficiently validate object paths. A principal able to create or rename objects in a configured Azure Blob Storage or AWS S3 catalog source could cause catalog descriptors to be read from outside the intended storage boundary, limited to locations reachable with the backend's configured credentials. This issue is fixed in 1.54.6.1d CVE-2026-1064927.6 HIG

14.1%

——4Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.16.1 and 0.17.8, the @backstage/backend-defaults package is affected by improper preservation of access restrictions during service credential delegation. An external service credential configured with access restrictions (e.g., read-only) could bypass those restrictions by routing requests through plugin delegation paths. This could allow a restricted service to perform operations beyond its intended scope, including write operations on plugins it was restricted to read-only access for. This issue is fixed in versions 0.16.1 and 0.17.8.23h CVE-2026-1064916.4 MED

18.0%

——5Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.6.17, the @backstage/plugin-proxy-backend package is affected by improper input validation in proxy-backend. An authenticated Backstage user could craft a request URL that causes the proxy-backend to forward the request to a path outside the configured base path on the target server. This is limited to target servers already configured as proxy endpoints and requires Backstage authentication by default. This issue is fixed in version 0.6.17.23h CVE-2026-1064906.5 MED

28.7%

——9Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 2.2.4, the @backstage/plugin-techdocs-backend package is affected by improper input validation in techdocs static content requests. When using the Azure Blob Storage provider, an authenticated Backstage user may be able to read restricted TechDocs content when entity-level permissions are enabled. Deployments that intentionally disable the default backend authentication policy may have broader exposure. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.4.22h CVE-2026-1064896.5 MED

20.2%

——6Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 2.2.4, the @backstage/plugin-techdocs-backend package is affected by improper authorization enforcement for techdocs static content. An authenticated user with access to one TechDocs documentation site could craft a URL able to read documentation belonging to a different entity. This only affects deployments using the external TechDocs builder with an external storage provider (S3, GCS, etc.) and the permission framework enabled. Instances that do not use the permission framework are unaffected, since TechDocs content is visible to all authenticated users by design. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.4.22h CVE-2026-1064888.1 HIG

19.4%

——6Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.4.20, the @backstage/plugin-auth-backend-module-oidc-provider package is affected by improper authentication in the oidc provider. Deployments using OIDC email-based identity resolution with a provider that permits unverified email addresses may allow an authenticated provider user to assume another catalog identity. This may grant access and permissions associated with that user. No direct availability impact is demonstrated. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.20.22h CVE-2026-1064873.5 LOW

16.7%

——5Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.21.10, the @backstage/plugin-kubernetes-backend package is affected by unsupported catalog cluster authentication mode in kubernetes backend. Deployments using catalog cluster discovery may be affected when catalog contributors can create or modify kubernetes-cluster Resource entities. With the required endpoint permissions and pod RBAC, the backend can use its local in-cluster identity, potentially exposing Kubernetes resources readable by that identity. The credential is used only with the local in-cluster API endpoint and is not sent to the catalog-supplied endpoint. This issue is fixed in version 0.21.10.14d CVE-2026-1064868.5 HIG

24.3%

——7Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.3.10 in @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-bitbucket-cloud and 0.2.25 in @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-bitbucket-server, the Bitbucket pull-request Scaffolder actions did not sufficiently validate filesystem paths. An authenticated user who can execute an eligible template and influence an allowed Bitbucket repository could affect paths outside the expected working area, potentially compromising backend confidentiality, integrity, or availability. This issue is fixed in @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-bitbucket-cloud 0.3.10 and @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-bitbucket-server 0.2.25.16d CVE-2026-1064635.4 MED

6.2%

——2Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 0.8.7, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend-module-gitlab package is affected by improper authorization in gitlab organizational user ingestion. Deployments that enable GitLab organization event ingestion and rely on scoped catalog users as an access boundary may admit an unintended catalog identity. Depending on sign-in and permission configuration, this may allow unauthorized access with the permissions of a standard authenticated user. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.7.16d CVE-2026-1064626.4 MED

6.2%

——2Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 1.54.6, scaffolder source-control actions may not consistently enforce intended credential boundaries. An authenticated user could cause an affected action to fall back to broader integration credentials and perform operations with more access than intended. This issue is fixed in 1.54.6 when operators also enable scaffolder.requireScmUserCredentials after upgrading.16d CVE-2026-1064614.3 MED

8.5%

——3Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 4.1.0, the @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend package is affected by incorrect authorization in scaffolder task listing. An authenticated internal user may be able to view metadata for scaffolder tasks outside the visibility intended by a deployment's permission policy. Stored task secrets are not included in the affected response, and no integrity or availability impact was identified. This issue is fixed in version 4.1.0.16d CVE-2026-1064606.8 MED

23.0%

——7Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.3.0 until 0.6.15 and 0.7.5, the @backstage/plugin-auth-node package did not consistently honor explicit negative email verification during shared OAuth profile normalization. The affected paths include a selected profile email marked verified: false, a matching raw provider email marked email_verified: false, and an email obtained only from an ID token marked email_verified: false. Exploitation requires an admitted identity-provider user who can supply or change an unverified email and a deployment that uses the selected profile email to resolve catalog identities. The verification metadata must apply to the selected email; an absent email_verified claim alone is not affected. In an affected configuration, the user may assume another catalog identity and obtain its associated access and permissions. This issue is fixed in versions 0.6.15 and 0.7.5.14d CVE-2026-1064598.5 HIG

10.9%

——3Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.3.0 until 0.3.8, the @backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend-module-sentry package is affected by improper input validation in sentry scaffolder actions. An authenticated internal user who can execute the affected actions may cause the backend to contact unintended destinations and disclose Sentry integration credentials. Subsequent impact depends on network reachability and the privileges granted to the configured token. This issue is fixed in version 0.3.8.10d CVE-2026-1064586.5 MED

17.9%

——5Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.4.0 until 0.5.15, the @backstage/plugin-catalog-backend-module-bitbucket-server package is affected by inconsistent repository filtering in bitbucket server catalog event updates. Deployments using event-driven updates in the Bitbucket Server catalog provider may ingest catalog locations from repositories that are excluded by the provider's configured project, repository, or archived-repository filters. An authenticated Bitbucket Server user who can push to a filtered-out repository that remains readable by the configured Backstage integration can trigger a legitimate repository event. The affected event path may then add a Location for that repository even though scheduled discovery excludes it. This issue is fixed in version 0.5.15.16d CVE-2026-1064576.8 MED

19.1%

——6Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.1.0 until 0.5.0, the @backstage/plugin-auth-backend-module-cloudflare-access-provider package is affected by insufficient audience validation in the cloudflare access auth provider. The Cloudflare Access auth provider verifies a token's signature and team issuer, but affected versions do not verify that the token was issued for the Backstage application. A user holding a valid token for another Access application in the same Cloudflare Zero Trust team may therefore be able to authenticate to Backstage if that token reaches the auth endpoint without the Backstage application's audience already being enforced upstream. Cloudflare Access normally evaluates the protected application before forwarding requests. This issue is fixed in version 0.5.0.16d CVE-2026-1064564.8 MED

13.8%

——4Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.5.0 until 0.6.18, the @backstage/plugin-proxy-backend package is affected by inconsistent credential enforcement for overlapping proxy routes. An operator can configure overlapping proxy paths with different credential requirements. When a parent path permits unauthenticated access and a nested path requires credentials, the parent exemption can also cover requests handled by the nested proxy. An unauthenticated caller may therefore reach the nested upstream through Backstage, including with static upstream credentials configured for that proxy. This issue is fixed in version 0.6.18.16d CVE-2026-1064557.7 HIG

25.2%

——8Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. From 0.11.12 until 1.14.7 and 1.15.5, the @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node package is affected by improper validation of mkdocs plugin configuration in techdocs. An authenticated attacker with control over a TechDocs source repository could cause a documentation build to retrieve and publish data from network locations reachable by the build environment. Exposure depends on deployment topology, build mode, and target endpoint protections. Modern cloud metadata services that require tokens or special headers are not directly accessible through the affected behavior. This issue is fixed in @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node versions 1.14.7 and 1.15.5.10d CVE-2026-1060627.8 HIG

3.8%

——1A heap-based buffer overflow was found in GIMP’s DirectDraw Surface (DDS) loader. When loading a crafted DDS image, buffer sizes derived from width, height, and pitch can be computed using 32-bit arithmetic that overflows. The allocated buffer is too small for the amount of pixel data written through GEGL, following integer overflow in size calculations. This may allow heap corruption and, in the worst case, arbitrary code execution in the context of the GIMP process.7d CVE-2026-1060325.7 MED

13.4%

——4Server-side request forgery in the OpenAPI schema processing of the agent import functionality in Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Starter Toolkit before 0.3.14 might allow an authenticated remote actor in the same AWS account to cause the environment of a user importing a Bedrock Agent to issue arbitrary outbound requests and read arbitrary local files, via crafted external reference values in the OpenAPI content associated with a Bedrock Agent action group. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to version 0.3.14. Note that bedrock-agentcore-starter-toolkit is deprecated. The @aws/agentcore npm CLI is the supported replacement and does not contain this issue. Migration to @aws/agentcore is the recommended long-term path.16d CVE-2026-1058129.0 CRI

19.8%

——6Improper control of code generation in the agent import functionality of Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Starter Toolkit before 0.3.14 might allow an authenticated same-account actor to execute arbitrary code when a user imports and runs or deploys a Bedrock Agent, via crafted configuration values incorporated into generated Python source without safe literal encoding. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to version 0.3.14. Because this issue persists into generated source, upgrading alone is not sufficient: agents imported with an affected version must be re-imported with version 0.3.14 or later and their local and deployed output artifacts replaced.16d CVE-2026-1058116.5 MED

25.3%

——8Authorization bypass through a user-controlled key in the optional Amazon Q Business Lambda hook sample ( q-business-lambda-hook https://github.com/aws-solutions-library-samples/qnabot-on-aws/blob/main/source/docs/lambda_hooks/README.md ), available with QnABot on AWS versions 7.0.0 through 7.4.5, might allow an authenticated remote user to read arbitrary Amazon S3 objects in the deploying AWS account. This sample solution provides an example Lambda hook and requires separate, manual deployment and additional setup. It is not deployed automatically with QnABot. Customers who have not deployed this optional sample hook are not affected and do not need to take action. To remediate this issue, affected customers should update the QnABot on AWS stack to version 7.4.6 or later and then redeploy the Amazon Q Business Lambda hook sample stack. Updating the QnABot on AWS stack alone does not deliver the fix.16d CVE-2026-1040466.2 MED

2.2%

——1A flaw was found in SSSD (System Security Services Daemon). When Identity Provider (IdP) authentication is enabled, pre-authentication requests retain state in memory without being cleared or timed out. A local attacker can repeatedly initiate authentication flows without completing them, causing unbounded memory consumption. This memory exhaustion can lead to a Denial of Service (DoS) by degrading or terminating SSSD authentication services.10d CVE-2026-1040454.7 MED

0.8%

——0A flaw was found in SSSD. A local user can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by exploiting a race condition in the autofs responder between asynchronous enumeration completion and map invalidation. By repeatedly sending concurrent map enumeration and invalidation requests, an attacker can cause memory to leak, leading to excessive memory consumption that can disrupt or crash the autofs service.10d CVE-2026-1012587.8 HIG

7.1%

——2A flaw was found in Ghostscript. When Ghostscript renders a crafted PostScript or EPS document, it can bypass the -dSAFER sandbox and execute arbitrary shell commands in the context of the Ghostscript process. The issue chains memory corruption in document parsing with disabling of internal path access controls at runtime. An attacker can deliver the document directly or through formats that delegate rendering to Ghostscript (for example EPS import or print conversion workflows). Successful exploitation can compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data accessible to the process running Ghostscript.8d CVE-2026-965894.3 MED

11.3%

——3When a private repository is transferred to a user who lacks access, Gitea grants that recipient temporary read access as a collaborator so they can review the repository. Rejecting or cancelling the transfer did not revoke this collaboration, so the named recipient kept persistent read access to the private repository, including its code, issues, pull requests and wiki, and could clone it. The repository owner was not notified. Transfer-granted access is now removed while collaborations that existed before the transfer are preserved.10d CVE-2026-965807.5 HIG

27.4%

——8Gitea expanded a workflow's static `strategy.matrix` into its full Cartesian product without a size limit when creating a run, before the fork pull request approval gate applied. A user who can open a pull request from a fork could submit a small workflow file whose matrix expands to a very large number of jobs, consuming server memory and potentially terminating the Gitea process. No runner is required. Static matrices above 256 combinations are now rejected before expansion.10d CVE-2026-964048.1 HIG

36.9%

——11When Gitea's web installer is reachable against a database that already contains users, such as after `INSTALL_LOCK` has been reset to `false`, submitting the install form with an administrator username matching an existing account issued an authenticated session for that account without verifying its password. If the account is an administrator, the session grants full administrative access, including changing the account's password. Databases with a single user also did not require the reinstall confirmation.10d CVE-2026-964004.3 MED

9.2%

——3With `[migrations] ALLOWED_DOMAINS` set to a matching entry such as `*` or a hostname wildcard, Gitea's migration URL validation could permit reserved and link-local addresses, such as `169.254.169.254`, even when `ALLOW_LOCALNETWORKS = false`. The local-network block list did not cover these ranges, and a hostname matching the allow list was accepted regardless of its resolved address. A user who can start migrations on such an instance could reach these addresses from the Gitea server; the default empty `ALLOWED_DOMAINS` configuration is not affected.10d CVE-2026-963997.5 HIG

27.4%

——8A repository's external issue tracker regular expression containing alternating capture groups could produce invalid slice indexes when Gitea rendered issue references, causing a runtime panic that terminated the Gitea process. A user who can edit a repository's external issue tracker settings could make any later rendering of matching content, such as viewing a README, crash the instance for all users.10d CVE-2026-951126.5 MED

22.8%

——7When processing issue and comment bodies, Gitea scanned the entire preceding text for action keywords such as "closes" or "fixes" once per Markdown link, giving processing time quadratic in the input size. An authenticated user able to submit issue or comment content could send a crafted body of about 1 MB that keeps a CPU core busy for several minutes while holding a database transaction open.10d CVE-2026-951069.1 CRI

20.6%

——6Gitea accepted pushed Git trees containing two entries with the same name, which Git's own consistency checks reject. Gitea's web views resolved such a path to the first entry, while `git checkout`, Gitea Actions, and release archives use the last. A contributor could open a pull request whose diff and file views show benign content while CI and checkouts at the same commit use different, attacker-controlled content. Incoming objects are now checked for consistency; objects already stored in existing repositories are not rescanned.10d CVE-2026-942059.8 CRI

28.0%

——8Gitea Actions decided whether a fork pull request run needed approval based on the user who triggered the event rather than the pull request author. For `pull_request` activity triggered by a maintainer during ordinary triage, such as adding a label, the run was created without requiring approval, while the workflow definition was still taken from the fork head. Where Actions is enabled and a matching runner is registered, fork-controlled workflow code could run on the base repository's runners without an explicit approval.10d CVE-2026-941145.9 MED

19.3%

——6Symbolic name not mapping to correct class. BCEL caches attacker-controlled classes under their self-declared names without validating the requested name, allowing subsequent lookups and name-keyed verification results to refer to a different class. This issue affects Apache Commons BCEL: before 6.13.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 6.13.0, which fixes the issue.15d CVE-2026-894308.1 HIG

7.9%

——2Gitea validated a push mirror's remote address against the `[migrations]` allow and block lists only when the mirror was created. Each synchronization passed the stored address directly to `git push`, so a name that later resolved to a blocked or internal address was still reached. A user with administrator access to a repository, which includes repositories they create themselves, could aim push mirror synchronization at internal Git services and force-push the repository's contents to them.10d CVE-2026-799607.1 HIG

10.9%

——3When a push was authenticated with a deploy key, Gitea recorded the repository owner as the pusher, so permission checks in the push hook pipeline evaluated the owner instead of the deploy key. A holder of a writable deploy key could create protected tags without being on the tag allow list and change repository visibility through push options, for example making a private repository public. Pull requests created through the AGit flow with a deploy key were also attributed to the owner.10d CVE-2026-798185.3 MED

20.0%

——6A vulnerability in an API interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information from the affected system.16d CVE-2026-798175.5 MED

0.9%

——0A sensitive information disclosure vulnerability exists in the client software of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker with local access to the affected system to obtain sensitive information.16d CVE-2026-798166.3 MED

8.7%

——3A vulnerability in a client interface of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to conduct a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against a user of the affected client interface. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code in a victim's browser context within the affected client interface.16d CVE-2026-798156.5 MED

49.7%

——15A command injection vulnerability in the OnGuard agent of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an authenticated remote attacker to inject arbitrary commands. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute commands with elevated privileges on the affected Windows endpoint.16d