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
- Critical2,383
- High8,771
- Medium6,812
- Low735
Filters
Window
Severity
Flags
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2020-5831—29.0%
——9——CVE-2015-1959—29.0%
——9——CVE-2024-34380—29.0%
——9——CVE-1999-0134—29.0%
——9——CVE-2023-44198—29.0%
——9——CVE-1999-1303—29.0%
——9——CVE-2000-1012—29.0%
——9——CVE-2000-1013—29.0%
——9——CVE-1999-1304—29.0%
——9——CVE-2018-10716—29.0%
——9——CVE-2002-0234—29.0%
——9——CVE-2017-12268—29.0%
——9——CVE-2024-31091—29.0%
——9——CVE-2025-30217—29.0%
——9——CVE-2026-35269—29.0%
——9——CVE-2026-643648.8 HIG29.0%
——9In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
HID: multitouch: fix out-of-bounds bit access on mt_io_flags
mt_io_flags is a single unsigned long, but mt_process_slot(),
mt_release_pending_palms() and mt_release_contacts() use it as a
per-slot bitmap indexed by the slot number. That slot number is only
bounded by td->maxcontacts, which is taken from the device's
ContactCountMaximum feature report and can be up to 255, not by
BITS_PER_LONG.
As a result, a multitouch device that advertises a large contact count
makes set_bit()/clear_bit() operate past the mt_io_flags word and
corrupt the adjacent members of struct mt_device. The sticky-fingers
release timer is the easiest way to reach this. mt_release_contacts()
runs
for (i = 0; i < mt->num_slots; i++)
clear_bit(i, &td->mt_io_flags);
with num_slots == maxcontacts. For maxcontacts around 250 the loop
clears the bits that overlap td->applications.next, zeroing that list
head, and the list_for_each_entry() that immediately follows then
dereferences NULL. The kernel panics from timer (softirq) context. On a
KASAN build this shows up as a general protection fault in
mt_release_contacts() with a null-ptr-deref at offset 0x58, which is
offsetof(struct mt_application, num_received).
The state is reachable from an untrusted USB or Bluetooth HID
multitouch device; no local privileges are required.
Store the per-slot active state in a separately allocated bitmap sized
for maxcontacts, the same pattern already used for pending_palm_slots,
and keep only MT_IO_FLAGS_RUNNING in mt_io_flags. The two
"mt_io_flags & MT_IO_SLOTS_MASK" arming checks become
bitmap_empty(td->active_slots, td->maxcontacts).
Move MT_IO_FLAGS_RUNNING back to bit 0. It was bumped to bit 32 by the
same commit to leave the low byte for the slot bits; with the slot bits
gone it fits in bit 0 again, which also keeps it within the unsigned
long on 32-bit.7dCVE-2026-58074—29.0%
——9A vulnerability allowing a high-privileged user to execute arbitrary code on the server.14dCVE-2025-24666—29.0%
——9——CVE-2012-0948—29.0%
——9——CVE-2019-3744—29.0%
——9——CVE-2010-4167—29.0%
——9——CVE-2025-24634—29.0%
——9——CVE-2025-24657—29.0%
——9——CVE-2025-14869—29.0%
——9——CVE-2024-53818—29.0%
——9——CVE-2019-11143—29.0%
——9——CVE-2024-31090—29.0%
——9——CVE-2024-26302—29.0%
——9——CVE-2025-66293—29.0%
——9——CVE-2025-6847—29.0%
——9——CVE-2026-631378.3 HIG29.0%
——9Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to privilege escalation via Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (CAPEC-180). A user holding workflow edit permissions could cause scheduled workflow executions to run with the privileges of a different, higher-privileged user, allowing access to and modification of data beyond their own authorization scope.15dCVE-2024-31092—29.0%
——9——CVE-2026-534802.7 LOW29.0%
——9Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to unauthorized file modification.71dCVE-2024-31087—29.0%
——9——CVE-2024-26454—29.0%
——9——CVE-2026-25328—29.0%
——9——CVE-2022-40521—29.0%
——9——CVE-2020-5830—29.0%
——9——CVE-2007-0014—29.0%
——9——CVE-2020-5828—29.0%
——9——