Vulnerabilities exploitable today
352,772in current view
Single score combining CVSS, KEV membership and EPSS. Every CVE with its own record — timeline from publication to active exploitation.
In KEV catalog1,653
New KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,590
Distribution · last window
- Critical2,281
- High7,876
- Medium7,167
- Low676
Window
Severity
Flags
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2025-49965—3.2%
——1——CVE-2025-36909—3.2%
——1——CVE-2025-54969—3.2%
——1——CVE-2025-14615—3.2%
——1——CVE-2025-30101—3.2%
——1——CVE-2026-23318—3.2%
——1——CVE-2026-84224.3 MED3.2%
——1The Remove meta boxes per user role plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.01. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'remove-meta-boxes-per-user-role' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify or reset the plugin's per-role meta box visibility settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.3dCVE-2026-74547.8 HIG3.2%
——1A maliciously crafted WRL file, when parsed through Autodesk 3ds Max, can force a Memory Corruption vulnerability. A malicious actor can leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process.2dCVE-2025-26697—3.1%
——1——CVE-2022-50808—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-41700—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-61969—3.1%
——1——CVE-2024-38399—3.1%
——1——CVE-2026-70474.3 MED3.1%
——1The Frontend User Notes plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the funp_ajax_modify_notes function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick a logged-in user into visiting a malicious page, causing unauthorized overwriting of that victim's own note content via a forged cross-site request to wp_update_post() via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. Due to ownership enforcement comparing the note's stored _funp_single_user_id meta against the current session's user ID, the attack is limited to modifying only notes belonging to the tricked victim, and cannot be used to alter notes owned by arbitrary third-party users.2dCVE-2022-50913—3.1%
——1——CVE-2021-0588—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-55250—3.1%
——1——CVE-2026-4068—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-26863—3.1%
——1——CVE-2018-21043—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-24897—3.1%
——1——CVE-2021-0492—3.1%
——1——CVE-2026-251938.1 HIG3.1%
——1Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File (CWE-532) in some Command Centre Service installers could lead to Service Account credentials exposure.
Mitigating Factor: Only sites that install Command Centre Services with a custom Service Account (not the default Network Service account) are potentially impacted.
Mitigation: For sites concerned about exposure, the recommended action is to change the Service Account password. They can also delete any installer log files, usually found in %programdata%\Gallagher\Command Centre.2dCVE-2018-9586—3.1%
——1——CVE-2021-0493—3.1%
——1——CVE-2026-25866—3.1%
——1——CVE-2026-7832—3.1%
——1——CVE-2023-20910—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-62958—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-58781—3.1%
——1——CVE-2020-0316—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-14906—3.1%
——1——CVE-2021-0489—3.1%
——1——CVE-2021-0601—3.1%
——1——CVE-2020-0317—3.1%
——1——CVE-2022-49939—3.1%
——1——CVE-2024-43378—3.1%
——1——CVE-2017-6285—3.1%
——1——CVE-2019-2314—3.1%
——1——CVE-2025-61987—3.1%
——1——