Vulnerabilities exploitable today
376,337in current view
Single score combining CVSS, KEV membership and EPSS. Every CVE with its own record — timeline from publication to active exploitation.
In KEV catalog1,713
New KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,646
Distribution · last window
- Critical2,321
- High8,285
- Medium6,563
- Low705
Filters
Window
Severity
Flags
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2025-233519.0 CRI30.3%
——9NVIDIA ConnectX and BlueField contain a vulnerability in the command interface where a local user with virtual function (VF) access may cause a write out of bounds by crafted input. A successful exploit of this vulnerability may lead to arbitrary code execution on the device.79dCVE-2025-233509.0 CRI30.3%
——9NVIDIA ConnectX and BlueField contain a vulnerability in the command interface where a local user with virtual function (VF) access may cause a write out of bounds by crafted input. A successful exploit of this vulnerability may lead to arbitrary code execution on the device.79dCVE-2025-47850—30.3%
——9——CVE-2024-7041—30.3%
——9——CVE-2023-28929—30.3%
——9——CVE-2024-49303—30.3%
——9——CVE-2016-2444—30.3%
——9——CVE-2024-28097—30.3%
——9——CVE-2026-82755—30.3%
——9Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information vulnerability in ash-project ash_authentication_oauth2_server allows a shared HTTP cache to serve one tenant's OAuth discovery metadata to another tenant's clients.
The RFC 8414 and RFC 9728 metadata endpoints in AshAuthentication.Phoenix.Oauth2Server.ProtocolRouter return tenant-specific values (issuer, authorization_endpoint, token_endpoint, jwks_uri) when a tenant is set, but sent them with Cache-Control: public, max-age=3600 and no Vary. When the tenant is derived from something other than the URL (a header or the Host) and a shared cache sits in front, the cache key is the URL alone, so a stored response for one tenant is served to another for up to an hour. Affected clients may then send authorization codes and secrets to the wrong tenant's token endpoint and validate tokens against the wrong keys.
This issue affects ash_authentication_oauth2_server: from 0.1.3 before 0.3.1.10dCVE-2007-6680—30.3%
——9——CVE-2014-5255—30.3%
——9——CVE-2026-203197.5 HIG30.3%
——9As part of Cisco's ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, the Cisco Secure Workload engineering team has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in a software hardening release that addresses multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities.
The vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-20319 are related to buffer management issues that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) CWE-119.29dCVE-2026-2729—30.3%
——9——CVE-2024-48855—30.3%
——9——CVE-2026-55736—30.3%
——9Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in ash-project ash allows a user to set the value of a private action argument that is intended to be controlled only by trusted server-side code.
Action arguments declared with public?: false are meant to be set internally (for example via Ash.Changeset.set_private_argument/3) and must not be settable from end-user input. When a changeset is built from a parameter map, Ash filters out private arguments, but the filtering is incomplete.
In the regular changeset path (for_create, for_update, for_destroy), private arguments are stripped only when the parameter key is an atom. When the key is a binary (string), as is the case for user-supplied parameters, the private argument is kept and the user controls its value. In the atomic path (Ash.Changeset.fully_atomic_changeset/4, also reached through atomic and bulk updates), private arguments are not stripped at all, regardless of whether the key is an atom or a binary.
An attacker who can submit parameters to an action that defines a private argument can therefore inject a value for that argument. Depending on how the application uses the argument (for example an acting_user_id driving authorization or record ownership), this can lead to an integrity violation or privilege escalation.
This issue affects ash: from 3.0.0 before 3.29.3.71dCVE-2023-50850—30.3%
——9——CVE-2021-1515—30.3%
——9——CVE-2022-43668—30.3%
——9——CVE-2026-450639.1 CRI30.3%
——9Symfony is a PHP framework for web and console applications and a set of reusable PHP components. Prior to 5.4.52, 6.4.40, 7.4.12, and 8.0.12, X509Authenticator extracts the user identifier from $_SERVER['SSL_CLIENT_S_DN'] with an unanchored regex that matches emailAddress= anywhere in the distinguished name, allowing an attacker with a trusted certificate containing emailAddress=victim inside another RDN value such as CN to authenticate as the victim. This issue is fixed in versions 5.4.52, 6.4.40, 7.4.12, and 8.0.12.65dCVE-2019-25290—30.3%
——9——CVE-2026-71494—30.3%
——9Infracost provides cloud cost intelligence for engineers, AI coding agents, and CI/CD. Prior to 0.10.45, internal/hcl/remote_variables_loader.go and related Terraform Cloud, remote-plan, and Terragrunt registry request paths can attach a configured Terraform Cloud or registry token to a destination hostname derived from untrusted Terraform input without confirming that it is the configured trusted host. When a CI run provides a token while scanning attacker-controlled Terraform, including pull_request_target or a same-repository pull request, an attacker can direct the request to an attacker-controlled host and disclose the token. Standard fork pull_request workflows without secrets are not exposed. This issue is fixed in version 0.10.45.28dCVE-2025-43297—30.3%
——9——CVE-2025-11044—30.3%
——9——CVE-2008-3450—30.3%
——9——CVE-2025-54419—30.3%
——9——CVE-2011-1495—30.3%
——9——CVE-2024-33998—30.3%
——9——CVE-2008-4278—30.3%
——9——CVE-2016-3748—30.3%
——9——CVE-2011-2707—30.3%
——9——CVE-2011-1788—30.3%
——9——CVE-2026-551188.3 HIG30.3%
——9A malicious actor with access to the network,low privileges and under certain conditions could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in UniFi Network Application to escalate privileges within the UniFi Network Application.74dCVE-2026-44223—30.3%
——9——CVE-2025-6724—30.3%
——9——CVE-2025-49186—30.3%
——9——CVE-2007-4216—30.3%
——9——CVE-2014-0085—30.3%
——9——CVE-2024-4057—30.3%
——9——CVE-2011-2909—30.3%
——9——CVE-2007-5665—30.3%
——9——