Vulnerabilities exploitable today
356,750in current view
Single score combining CVSS, KEV membership and EPSS. Every CVE with its own record — timeline from publication to active exploitation.
In KEV catalog1,662
New KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,605
Distribution · last window
- Critical2,532
- High10,539
- Medium6,697
- Low663
Window
Severity
Flags
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2025-9989—8.9%
——3——CVE-2024-3979—8.9%
——3——CVE-2026-179644.3 MED8.9%
——3Incorrect security UI in UI in Google Chrome on Android prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)6dCVE-2026-714974.7 MED8.9%
——3jsoup is a Java library for working with real-world HTML. From 1.14.3 until 1.23.1, jsoup's HTML parser could incorrectly handle a malformed tag name ending in a control character, causing the tag to acquire the parsing behavior of a different element. When a custom Safelist permits certain raw-text elements, this misparsing can cause content that should remain inert text to be emitted as active markup after serialization, potentially resulting in cross-site scripting. jsoup's built-in Safelists are not affected. This issue is fixed in version 1.23.1.2dCVE-2025-58965—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-60112—8.9%
——3——CVE-2024-467347.8 HIG8.9%
——3In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: fix race between direct IO write and fsync when using same fd
If we have 2 threads that are using the same file descriptor and one of
them is doing direct IO writes while the other is doing fsync, we have a
race where we can end up either:
1) Attempt a fsync without holding the inode's lock, triggering an
assertion failures when assertions are enabled;
2) Do an invalid memory access from the fsync task because the file private
points to memory allocated on stack by the direct IO task and it may be
used by the fsync task after the stack was destroyed.
The race happens like this:
1) A user space program opens a file descriptor with O_DIRECT;
2) The program spawns 2 threads using libpthread for example;
3) One of the threads uses the file descriptor to do direct IO writes,
while the other calls fsync using the same file descriptor.
4) Call task A the thread doing direct IO writes and task B the thread
doing fsyncs;
5) Task A does a direct IO write, and at btrfs_direct_write() sets the
file's private to an on stack allocated private with the member
'fsync_skip_inode_lock' set to true;
6) Task B enters btrfs_sync_file() and sees that there's a private
structure associated to the file which has 'fsync_skip_inode_lock' set
to true, so it skips locking the inode's VFS lock;
7) Task A completes the direct IO write, and resets the file's private to
NULL since it had no prior private and our private was stack allocated.
Then it unlocks the inode's VFS lock;
8) Task B enters btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging(), then the
assertion that checks the inode's VFS lock is held fails, since task B
never locked it and task A has already unlocked it.
The stack trace produced is the following:
assertion failed: inode_is_locked(&inode->vfs_inode), in fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c:983
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c:983!
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
CPU: 9 PID: 5072 Comm: worker Tainted: G U OE 6.10.5-1-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed 69f48d427608e1c09e60ea24c6c55e2ca1b049e8
Hardware name: Acer Predator PH315-52/Covini_CFS, BIOS V1.12 07/28/2020
RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f/0x42 [btrfs]
Code: 50 d6 86 c0 e8 (...)
RSP: 0018:ffff9e4a03dcfc78 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 0000000000000054 RBX: ffff9078a9868e98 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff907dce4a7800 RDI: ffff907dce4a7800
RBP: ffff907805518800 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff9e4a03dcfb38
R10: ffff9e4a03dcfb30 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: ffff907684ae7800
R13: 0000000000000001 R14: ffff90774646b600 R15: 0000000000000000
FS: 00007f04b96006c0(0000) GS:ffff907dce480000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007f32acbfc000 CR3: 00000001fd4fa005 CR4: 00000000003726f0
Call Trace:
<TASK>
? __die_body.cold+0x14/0x24
? die+0x2e/0x50
? do_trap+0xca/0x110
? do_error_trap+0x6a/0x90
? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f/0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]
? exc_invalid_op+0x50/0x70
? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f/0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f/0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]
? btrfs_get_ordered_extents_for_logging.cold+0x1f/0x42 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]
btrfs_sync_file+0x21a/0x4d0 [btrfs bb26272d49b4cdc847cf3f7faadd459b62caee9a]
? __seccomp_filter+0x31d/0x4f0
__x64_sys_fdatasync+0x4f/0x90
do_syscall_64+0x82/0x160
? do_futex+0xcb/0x190
? __x64_sys_futex+0x10e/0x1d0
? switch_fpu_return+0x4f/0xd0
? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x72/0x220
? do_syscall_64+0x8e/0x160
? syscall_exit_to_user_mod
---truncated---6dCVE-2026-179654.3 MED8.9%
——3Incorrect security UI in Chrome for iOS in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)6dCVE-2025-58232—8.9%
——3——CVE-2019-2338—8.9%
——3——CVE-2024-39645—8.9%
——3——CVE-2022-26856—8.9%
——3——CVE-2022-46356—8.9%
——3——CVE-2018-9514—8.9%
——3——CVE-2024-39797—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-58260—8.9%
——3——CVE-2023-38531—8.9%
——3——CVE-2022-39860—8.9%
——3——CVE-2022-46357—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-60105—8.9%
——3——CVE-2024-0092—8.9%
——3——CVE-2026-5065—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-58231—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-62913—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-62921—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-62910—8.9%
——3——CVE-2026-1843—8.8%
——3——CVE-2023-42562—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-62911—8.9%
——3——CVE-2026-2859—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-58002—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-64197—8.9%
——3——CVE-2023-38528—8.9%
——3——CVE-2024-46682—8.9%
——3——CVE-2023-40433—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-59553—8.9%
——3——CVE-2026-179584.3 MED8.9%
——3Inappropriate implementation in Views in Google Chrome prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)6dCVE-2026-288138.8 HIG8.9%
——3Apache JSPWiki, up to 2.12.3, is vulnerable to JSON Hijacking, which leads to csrf vulnerabilities.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.12.4, which fixes this issue.4dCVE-2025-62939—8.9%
——3——CVE-2025-59549—8.9%
——3——