Vulnerabilidades explotables hoy
10,154en la vista actual
Score único combinando CVSS, membresía KEV y EPSS. Cada CVE con su ficha propia — timeline desde publicación hasta explotación activa.
En catálogo KEV1,647
Nuevos KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,582
Distribución · última ventana
- Crítico1,310
- Alto4,271
- Medio3,627
- Bajo280
Ventana
Severidad
Filtros
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2024-422145.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since HTTP OPTIONS method is enabled on this web server. The OPTIONS method provides a list of the methods that are supported by the Web server which allows an attacker to narrow and intensify their efforts.4hCVE-2024-235784.2 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack as the application implements an HTML5 cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) policy for this request that allows access from any domain (*-Wildcard).4hCVE-2024-235774.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable since the application does not have a validation for HOST header and accepts arbitrary hosts when requested in http protocol. When an application doesn’t adequately validate or sanitize this header, it can lead to several security risks, including Host header poisoning, server misconfigurations.4hCVE-2024-235755.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the application returns detailed error messages that leak information about the processing on the server. An attacker may use the contents of error messages to help launch another ,more focused attack.4hCVE-2024-235745.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since It was found that a malicious actor can use brute-force techniques to either guess or confirm valid users in the system. Use renumeration is when a malicious actor can use brute-force techniques to either guess or confirm valid users in a system4hCVE-2024-235733.7 BAJ—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the Application is vulnerable to Lucky 13. that makes the SS LLUCKY13 possible affects the TLS1.1and 1.2 and DTLS1.0 or 1.2 implementations . It also affects previous versions such as SSL3.0 and TLS1.0. This can also be considered a type of man-in-the-middle attack.4hCVE-2024-235724.2 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack as cookie appears to contain a session token, which may increase the risk associated with this issue. You should review the contents of the cookie to determine its function.4hCVE-2024-235714.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the application does not have an appropriate caching policy specifying the extent to which the page and its form fields should be cached. If sensitive information in application responses is stored in the local cache, then this may be retrieved by other users who have access to the same computer at a future time.4hCVE-2024-235704.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is affected by clickjacking vulnerability Cross-Frame Scripting is an attack technique where an attacker loads a vulnerable application in an iFrame on his malicious site. The attacker can then launch a Clickjacking attack, which may lead to Phishing, Cross-Site Request Forgery, sensitive information leakage and more.4hCVE-2024-235694.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the server is not configured with “X-XSS-Protection" header4hCVE-2024-235685.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attacks since the server software version used by the application is revealed by the web server. Displaying version information of software could allow an attacker to determine which vulnerabilities are present in the software, particularly if an outdated software version is in use with published vulnerabilities.4hCVE-2024-235674.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is affected by Sensitive Information in GET method & in URL which allows application to pass sensitive data via URL parameters during normal usage. Data passed in this manner can be exposed because it may end up stored in unintended locations, including server logs, local browser history and proxy logs.6hCVE-2024-235666.5 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to brute force attacks since application doesn’t have captcha implemented. It can lead to various security issues like brute force , automated attacks & account enumeration4hCVE-2024-235655.3 MED—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to email flooding as the application does not have a proper mail limitation mechanism at Forget Password functionality. The actor could b e a human or an automated process such as a virus or bot. This could be used to cause a denial of service, compromise program logic or other consequences.4hCVE-2024-235649.1 CRÍ—
——0HCL Aftermarket EPC is affected by Business Logic Vulnerability using which a non valid user of the application can obtain passwords from the server and redirect them to their own email address by manipulating the server's response. The application includes checks in the initial requests to verify the validity of the provided UserId, but similar validation is not applied to Email requests when sending passwords to user emails.6hCVE-2026-83967.5 ALT—
——0Improper restriction of XML external entity reference vulnerability in Netcad Software Inc. NetGIS allows Serialized Data External Linking.
This issue affects NetGIS: from 5.0.66 before 7.2.2.6hCVE-2026-71897.5 ALT—
——0Insertion of sensitive information into sent data vulnerability in Proliz Software Ltd. Co. Proliz's OBS allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.
This issue affects Proliz's OBS: before v3.6.0.4hCVE-2026-160147.3 ALT—
——0A vulnerability was found in code-projects Hospital Bed Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the component Login Form. Performing a manipulation of the argument Username results in sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made public and could be used.6hCVE-2026-13410——
——0Dancer::Plugin::Auth::Google versions through 0.07 for Perl have TLS verification disabled.
The default user agent is initialised with SSL_verify_mode explicitly disabled.
An attacker with network man-in-the-middle (MITM) capability between the Dancer application and googleapis.com can intercept the OAuth2 token exchange and userinfo fetch, return a forged access_token and user profile, and be logged in to the Dancer application as any Google user.4hCVE-2026-13082——
——0GD::SecurityImage versions through 1.75 for Perl use rand to generate secrets.
The random method creates the challenge text used for the CAPTCHA by sampling characters from an array using Perl's built-in rand function, and generates a (by default) six-character string.
The built-in rand function is unsuitable for security applications because it is predictable and reversible.5hCVE-2026-160135.3 MED—
——0A vulnerability has been found in liftoff-sr CIPster up to 632336d414ef708a542377c1aa8d6fdb7c70a760. Affected by this issue is the function CipAppPath::deserialize_symbolic of the file source/src/cip/cipepath.cc. Such manipulation leads to out-of-bounds read. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product operates on a rolling release basis, ensuring continuous delivery. Consequently, there are no version details for either affected or updated releases. The name of the patch is 886a4d090e1c5b0475f0b1c2fe0606a8f0d6a519. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.6hCVE-2026-160096.3 MED—
——0A vulnerability was detected in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /prescriptionorderdetail.php. The manipulation of the argument delid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.6hCVE-2026-159435.5 MED—
——0A flaw was found in the Keycloak keycloak-services component, which handles the management of identity providers. The issue occurs when a delegated administrator updates an OIDC identity provider using a masked client secret sentinel value. Due to improper validation, Keycloak reuses the existing real secret even if security-sensitive fields like the token URL have been changed, allowing an attacker to redirect and capture the secret.4hCVE-2026-96026.5 MED—
——0Mattermost Desktop App versions <=6.2 6.0.2 5.6.13.0 fail to validate payloads sent from the Mattermost Web App to the Desktop App which allows a malicious server owner to crash the Mattermost Desktop App via changing the payload of a method to a malformed one. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2026-006786hCVE-2026-80756.5 MED—
——0Mattermost Desktop App versions <=6.2 5.5.13 6.0.2.0 fail to properly null check when checking for headers in the Mattermost Desktop App which allows any user to crash another channel members Desktop App via posting a malicious link with an embedded image that misses one of those headers. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2026-006686hCVE-2026-59695——
——0Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to drain the fee-payer wallet in a single request by naming an arbitrarily high gas price.
When the mpp Elixir library is configured as fee payer (fee_payer: true), MPP.Tempo.Transaction.cosign_fee_payer/3 re-signs the client-supplied base fields of the 0x76 AASigned envelope verbatim, including max_fee_per_gas and max_priority_fee_per_gas, without validating that they are within reasonable bounds. A malicious client embeds arbitrarily large values for these fields in the signed envelope. The server co-signs and broadcasts the transaction. The effective_gas_price billed against the fee-payer wallet is derived from the attacker-supplied ceilings, so the server pays those inflated per-gas rates out of its own wallet. A single crafted request can drain the wallet entirely, after which the server can no longer sponsor gas for legitimate payment requests.
This issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.6.0.7hCVE-2026-59694——
——0Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to inflate the fee-payer's gas cost per payment by a large multiplier, degrading the sponsor's operating margin.
When the mpp Elixir library is configured as fee payer (fee_payer: true), MPP.Tempo.Transaction.cosign_fee_payer/3 re-signs the client-supplied base fields of the 0x76 AASigned envelope verbatim, including the EIP-2930 access list, without validating its length or contents. EIP-2930 access list entries incur intrinsic gas (~2,400 gas per address, plus 1,900 gas per storage key) charged before any opcode executes, regardless of whether the listed addresses are ever touched. A malicious client submits a valid transferWithMemo call alongside a large number of fabricated access-list entries. The server co-signs and broadcasts the transaction. The intended transfer executes normally, but the fee-payer wallet pays a large multiple of the expected gas cost with no corresponding on-chain work.
At the maintainer's default of 137 access-list entries (fitting within Bandit's 10,000-byte per-header-field limit) and 100 Gwei max_fee_per_gas, per-payment gas cost rises from ~51,287 to ~380,087 gas, a 7.4x multiplier. Sustained abuse destroys the sponsor's operating margin on low-cost payments and, over time, drains the fee-payer wallet.
This issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.6.0.7hCVE-2026-59252——
——0Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to drain the fee-payer wallet, resulting in denial of service for legitimate clients.
When the mpp Elixir library is configured as fee payer (fee_payer: true), the MPP.Methods.Tempo payment method co-signs and broadcasts a client-supplied EVM transaction without first validating that the client-supplied gas_limit is sufficient to complete the intended call. A malicious client can submit a signed transferWithMemo transaction with gas_limit deliberately set just below the amount required for successful execution. The server co-signs the transaction and broadcasts it via rpc_broadcast_sync. The transaction runs out of gas during EVM execution and reverts, but the fee-payer wallet is still charged for the burned gas while the client pays nothing and receives no resource. Repeated requests from one or more malicious clients drain the fee-payer wallet at near-zero cost to the attacker, ultimately preventing the server from sponsoring gas for legitimate payment requests.
The wait_for_confirmation = false (optimistic) path is also affected: it invokes simulate_payment_call via eth_call, but that simulation omits the gas parameter and therefore does not catch out-of-gas conditions.
This issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.6.0.7hCVE-2026-160086.3 MED—
——0A security vulnerability has been detected in sagold json-schema-library 11.5.0/11.5.1. This impacts the function parsePropertyDependencies of the file src/keywords/propertyDependencies.ts. The manipulation leads to improperly controlled modification of object prototype attributes. The attack can be initiated remotely. Upgrading to version 11.6.0 will fix this issue. The identifier of the patch is 432287ee6f68a02ce6f015354618486ec427a32d. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.6hCVE-2026-14253——
——0Rejected reason: This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority.21hCVE-2026-11740——
——0Rejected reason: This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority.21hCVE-2026-8055——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-48866. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2026-48866. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-48866 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage.2dCVE-2026-62287——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61873. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61873. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61873 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62248——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61438. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61438. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61438 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62180——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61440. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61440. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61440 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62178——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61427. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61427. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61427 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62177——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-60085. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-60085. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-60085 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62174——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61435. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61435. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61435 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62173——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61433. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61433. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61433 instead of this candidate.2dCVE-2026-62172——
——0Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2026-61436. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2026-61436. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2026-61436 instead of this candidate.2d