Vulnerabilidades explotables hoy
15,595en 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 KEV1,756
Nuevos KEV · 24H0
Exploit Today ≥ 701,689
Distribución · última ventana
- Crítico5,082
- Alto19,899
- Medio18,229
- Bajo1,858
Filtros
Ventana
Severidad
Filtros
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2026-798107.2 ALT46.2%
——14Remote code execution vulnerabilities exist in the affected interface of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager that could allow an authenticated remote attacker with high privileges to execute arbitrary code. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system.18dCVE-2026-798097.3 ALT23.6%
——7An unauthenticated path traversal vulnerability exists in an API endpoint of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to influence authorization decisions and be assigned an unintended role.19dCVE-2026-798087.8 ALT1.6%
——0A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the OnGuard agent of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated local user to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges on the affected host or to disrupt the availability of the affected service.18dCVE-2026-798077.8 ALT0.1%
——0A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the Windows client software for ClearPass Policy Manager could allow malicious users on a local instance to elevate their user privileges. A successful exploit could allow these users to execute attacker-supplied code with elevated privileges on the local system.18dCVE-2026-798067.8 ALT0.8%
——0A privilege escalation vulnerability in the ClearPass Policy Manager OnGuard Linux agent could allow malicious users on a Linux instance to elevate their user privileges. A successful exploit allows a malicious user to escalate to root privileges on the affected Linux client.18dCVE-2026-798059.8 CRÍ37.1%
——11An authenticated path traversal vulnerability exists in ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to read and modify certain files on the underlying operating system.18dCVE-2026-798038.8 ALT56.2%
——17A command injection vulnerability exists in the API of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated remote attacker to escalate privileges and gain administrative control of the affected system.18dCVE-2026-798028.8 ALT67.6%
——20A command injection vulnerability exists in the client software of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker who is able to supply crafted input to the affected software to execute arbitrary commands with elevated privileges on the affected host.18dCVE-2026-798019.8 CRÍ25.2%
——8A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the client agent software of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to introduce untrusted code. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected client system.18dCVE-2026-798008.8 ALT49.7%
——15An authenticated path traversal vulnerability exists in the command line interface of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow a low-privileged authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges on the underlying operating system.18dCVE-2026-797998.8 ALT25.8%
——8A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to conduct a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against an administrative user of the interface. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code in a victim's browser in the context of the affected interface.19dCVE-2026-797989.9 CRÍ27.5%
——8SQL injection vulnerabilities in the web-based management interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow a low-privileged authenticated remote attacker to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass Policy Manager instance. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to run arbitrary database commands.18dCVE-2026-797978.8 ALT19.1%
——6An improper access control vulnerability exists in the Android client application for HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager, where application functionality may be invoked by untrusted sources. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker, with user interaction, to obtain sensitive information from the affected user.18dCVE-2026-797969.8 CRÍ40.1%
——12Vulnerabilities have been identified in the affected interface of ClearPass Policy Manager that could potentially allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to the affected system.18dCVE-2026-797949.1 CRÍ22.2%
——7A SQL injection vulnerability in the web-based management interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an authenticated remote attacker to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass Policy Manager instance. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to run arbitrary database commands.18dCVE-2026-767549.8 CRÍ32.3%
——10A vulnerability in an affected interface of ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to conduct SQL injection attacks against the ClearPass Policy Manager instance. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to run arbitrary database commands.18dCVE-2026-767539.8 CRÍ44.3%
——13A format string vulnerability in an affected service interface of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to corrupt process memory. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code.18dCVE-2026-767529.8 CRÍ40.4%
——12Authentication bypass vulnerabilities exist in the web-based management and API interfaces of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls and gain administrative access to the affected system.18dCVE-2026-767519.8 CRÍ22.4%
——7A missing integrity verification vulnerability exists in the OnGuard agent of ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected endpoint with the elevated privileges of the agent.18dCVE-2026-767509.8 CRÍ45.0%
——14Deserialization of untrusted data vulnerabilities exist in the web interface of HPE Networking ClearPass Policy Manager. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected system.18dCVE-2026-767496.5 MED34.1%
——10A sensitive information disclosure vulnerability exists in AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to access sensitive information.19dCVE-2026-767488.8 ALT19.7%
——6A privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the API of AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated read-only user to escalate their privileges and gain administrative access to the affected system.18dCVE-2026-767479.1 CRÍ38.7%
——12Buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the affected interface of AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to expose sensitive memory contents and cause a denial of service on the device.19dCVE-2026-767469.3 CRÍ9.6%
——3An unauthenticated buffer overflow vulnerability exists in AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated adjacent attacker to expose sensitive memory contents and cause a denial of service on the affected device.19dCVE-2026-767459.6 CRÍ14.3%
——4Memory corruption vulnerabilities exist in AOS-S that are reachable by an unauthenticated adjacent attacker. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code.18dCVE-2026-767449.8 CRÍ43.3%
——13Buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the affected interface of AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code.18dCVE-2026-767439.8 CRÍ45.7%
——14A vulnerability have been identified in the management interface of AOS-S that could potentially allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls if certain preconditions outside of the attacker's control are met. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to the affected system.18dCVE-2026-767429.8 CRÍ47.7%
——14Authentication bypass vulnerabilities exist in the web management interface of AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to gain unauthorized access to the affected system.18dCVE-2026-767416.5 MED32.9%
——10Buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the affected interface of AOS-S. Successful exploitation could allow an authenticated remote attacker to cause a denial-of-service condition on the affected system.19dCVE-2026-760615.5 MED13.7%
——4A flaw was found in CRI-O's `bind_mount_prefix` handling. When configured with a non-empty `bind_mount_prefix`, a malicious container or local attacker could use a Container Runtime Interface (CRI) hostPath containing an intermediate absolute symlink. This could cause the bind mount source to resolve outside the intended prefixed root, potentially leading to unauthorized access to files or privilege escalation on the host system.18dCVE-2026-732789.8 CRÍ40.0%
——12Gitea's OAuth2 and OpenID Connect sign-in paths do not require a WebAuthn challenge when WebAuthn is the account's only configured second factor. A party able to authenticate through the affected external identity flow can obtain a full session without the passkey verification enforced during password login. One affected path can also persist an external identity link, extending the compromise beyond the initial session; accounts with TOTP configured are outside the reported WebAuthn-only scenario.13dCVE-2026-703577.5 ALT30.3%
——9Gitea validates a repository migration hostname against its network allow and block lists before invoking Git, but the Git subprocess independently resolves the hostname when connecting. An attacker who can start a migration and control the destination's DNS can change the address between validation and connection to reach a blocked internal address. The affected path is the Git clone operation; validation in the migration HTTP client's dialer does not protect the independently connecting Git subprocess.13dCVE-2026-1064544.3 MED35.7%
——11Twisted is an event-based framework for internet applications, supporting Python 3.6+. In 25.5.0 and earlier, wildcardToRegexp() in twisted/mail/imap4.py translates the IMAP asterisk and percent wildcards but passes all other characters from an authenticated client's LIST or LSUB pattern directly to re.compile(), allowing nested or otherwise expensive regular expression constructs to cause catastrophic backtracking when matched against mailbox names. Because Twisted uses a cooperative single-threaded reactor, the blocking match suspends all server input and output for the duration of the match. No fixed release is available as of this review.19dCVE-2026-1064535.3 MED30.8%
——9yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. Prior to 1.11.2, LZ4DecompressorWithLength uses getDecompressedLength to trust the four-byte decompressed-length header before validating the compressed input, allowing a five-byte attacker-supplied input whose header declares a large output size to request up to approximately 2 GiB and exhaust the JVM heap. Convenience overloads backed by LZ4FastDecompressor or LZ4SafeDecompressor allocate the untrusted size, while overloads that write to a caller-provided destination buffer are not affected because the caller controls the destination size. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.2.19dCVE-2026-1064525.3 MED39.1%
——12yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. Prior to 1.11.2, net.jpountz.lz4.LZ4BlockInputStream refill() validates that the compressedLen field in a legacy LZ4Block header is nonnegative but allocates a compressed-input buffer of that attacker-controlled size before reading payload data, allowing a header-only stream to request a near-2 GiB allocation and exhaust the JVM heap. Canonical writers emit raw blocks when compression is not smaller than the original block, but vulnerable readers accept non-canonical oversized compressed blocks. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.2.20dCVE-2026-106451—1.2%
——0yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. From 1.7.0 until 1.11.4, net.jpountz.util.Native.load() uses File.createTempFile to create an exclusive temporary .lck file but derives the native-library path by removing the suffix, then FileOutputStream opens that predictable path without exclusive creation, allowing another local user with access to the same shared temporary directory to create or replace the library file before System.load() uses it. Successful exploitation depends on shared-directory permissions, host protections, and winning the race, and can execute native code as the victim; hardened systems may instead cause library loading to fail and fall back to Java implementations. Configurations using a system library, a private java.io.tmpdir, or Java-only implementations are not affected. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.4.19dCVE-2026-1064505.3 MED39.1%
——12yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. Prior to 1.11.4, net.jpountz.lz4.LZ4FrameInputStream readHeader() allocates two new 4 MiB block buffers whenever a maximum-block-size frame header is read, and the default concatenated-frame mode allows attacker-controlled streams containing many minimal empty frames to trigger roughly 8 MiB of allocation for every 11 input bytes. The stream produces no decompressed output while consuming CPU and garbage-collection time, so decompressed-size limits do not mitigate the issue; readSingleFrame mode is not affected. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.4.18dCVE-2026-1064493.7 BAJ36.3%
——11yawkat LZ4 Java provides LZ4 compression for Java. Prior to 1.11.4, net.jpountz.lz4.LZ4BlockInputStream configured with stopOnEmptyBlock set to false handles each well-formed empty LZ4Block by recursively calling refill(), allowing a long sequence of empty blocks in an attacker-controlled compressed stream to exhaust the decoding thread's stack and throw StackOverflowError. The default stopOnEmptyBlock setting is true and is not affected, and the issue does not cause memory corruption. This issue is fixed in version 1.11.4.19dCVE-2026-106448—34.1%
——10StableLib is a stable library of useful TypeScript and JavaScript code. Prior to 2.0.4, the @stablelib/cbor CBOR map decoding path creates ordinary JavaScript objects and assigns attacker-controlled keys with bracket assignment. A map key named __proto__ invokes the inherited prototype setter instead of creating an ordinary own property, allowing the decoded object's prototype to contain attacker-controlled authorization or feature-flag values. Downstream code that trusts normal property lookup or merges the decoded object can therefore make security-sensitive decisions using inherited attacker data. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.4.19dCVE-2026-106447—40.5%
——12StableLib is a stable library of useful TypeScript and JavaScript code. Prior to 2.0.4, the @stablelib/cbor decoder recursively processes nested CBOR arrays, maps, and tags through _decodeValue() without enforcing a maximum nesting depth. A sufficiently deep structure exhausts the JavaScript call stack, causing a decoding exception and potentially terminating an uncaught request worker or process. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.4.19d