Vulnerabilidades explotables hoy
4,375en 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
- Medio18,228
- Bajo1,858
Filtros
Ventana
Severidad
Filtros
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2020-25682—99.5%
——30——CVE-2019-11248—99.5%
——30——CVE-2000-09796.4 SIN99.5%
——30File and Print Sharing service in Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Me does not properly check the password for a file share, which allows remote attackers to bypass share access controls by sending a 1-byte password that matches the first character of the real password, aka the "Share Level Password" vulnerability.33dCVE-2012-0002—99.5%
——30——CVE-2006-3942—99.5%
——30——CVE-2016-1525—99.5%
——30——CVE-2006-0476—99.5%
——30——CVE-2022-30534—99.5%
——30——CVE-2013-0803—99.5%
——30——CVE-2005-0116—99.5%
——30——CVE-2009-0920—99.5%
——30——CVE-2023-32167—99.5%
——30——CVE-2014-4977—99.5%
——30——CVE-2018-16167—99.5%
——30——CVE-2021-41950—99.5%
——30——CVE-2022-43671—99.5%
——30——CVE-2025-154678.8 ALT99.5%
——30Issue summary: Parsing CMS AuthEnvelopedData or EnvelopedData message with
maliciously crafted AEAD parameters can trigger a stack buffer overflow.
Impact summary: A stack buffer overflow may lead to a crash, causing Denial
of Service, or potentially remote code execution.
When parsing CMS (Auth)EnvelopedData structures that use AEAD ciphers such as
AES-GCM, the IV (Initialization Vector) encoded in the ASN.1 parameters is
copied into a fixed-size stack buffer without verifying that its length fits
the destination. An attacker can supply a crafted CMS message with an
oversized IV, causing a stack-based out-of-bounds write before any
authentication or tag verification occurs.
Applications and services that parse untrusted CMS or PKCS#7 content using
AEAD ciphers (e.g., S/MIME (Auth)EnvelopedData with AES-GCM) are vulnerable.
Because the overflow occurs prior to authentication, no valid key material
is required to trigger it. While exploitability to remote code execution
depends on platform and toolchain mitigations, the stack-based write
primitive represents a severe risk.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as the CMS implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module
boundary.
OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are not affected by this issue.12dCVE-2015-1592—99.5%
——30——CVE-2025-30208—99.5%
——30——CVE-2023-26477—99.5%
——30——CVE-2020-14756—99.5%
——30——CVE-2018-17128—99.5%
——30——CVE-2002-1643—99.5%
——30——CVE-2004-2466—99.5%
——30——CVE-2018-8298—99.5%
KEV—80ChakraCore Scripting Engine Type Confusion Vulnerability—CVE-2024-31138—99.5%
——30——CVE-2014-0780—99.5%
KEV—80InduSoft Web Studio NTWebServer Directory Traversal Vulnerability—CVE-2004-1060—99.5%
——30——CVE-2021-330375.3 MED99.5%
——30Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.46 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.66 did not correctly parse the HTTP transfer-encoding request header in some circumstances leading to the possibility to request smuggling when used with a reverse proxy. Specifically: - Tomcat incorrectly ignored the transfer encoding header if the client declared it would only accept an HTTP/1.0 response; - Tomcat honoured the identify encoding; and - Tomcat did not ensure that, if present, the chunked encoding was the final encoding.18dCVE-2025-117499.8 CRÍ99.5%
——30The AI Engine plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.3 via the /mcp/v1/ REST API endpoint that exposes the 'Bearer Token' value when 'No-Auth URL' is enabled. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract the bearer token, which can be used to gain access to a valid session and perform many actions like creating a new administrator account, leading to privilege escalation.8dCVE-2004-0206—99.5%
——30——CVE-2001-0550—99.5%
——30——CVE-1999-0874—99.5%
——30——CVE-2020-12124—99.5%
——30——CVE-2000-1089—99.5%
——30——CVE-2011-1563—99.5%
——30——CVE-2013-2115—99.5%
——30——CVE-2023-6019—99.5%
——30——CVE-2010-3653—99.5%
——30——CVE-2016-1542—99.5%
——30——