Vulnerabilidades explotables hoy
402,779en 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-2023-487955.9 MED99.8%
——30The SSH transport protocol with certain OpenSSH extensions, found in OpenSSH before 9.6 and other products, allows remote attackers to bypass integrity checks such that some packets are omitted (from the extension negotiation message), and a client and server may consequently end up with a connection for which some security features have been downgraded or disabled, aka a Terrapin attack. This occurs because the SSH Binary Packet Protocol (BPP), implemented by these extensions, mishandles the handshake phase and mishandles use of sequence numbers. For example, there is an effective attack against SSH's use of ChaCha20-Poly1305 (and CBC with Encrypt-then-MAC). The bypass occurs in chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com and (if CBC is used) the -etm@openssh.com MAC algorithms. This also affects Maverick Synergy Java SSH API before 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT, Dropbear through 2022.83, Ssh before 5.1.1 in Erlang/OTP, PuTTY before 0.80, AsyncSSH before 2.14.2, golang.org/x/crypto before 0.17.0, libssh before 0.10.6, libssh2 through 1.11.0, Thorn Tech SFTP Gateway before 3.4.6, Tera Term before 5.1, Paramiko before 3.4.0, jsch before 0.2.15, SFTPGo before 2.5.6, Netgate pfSense Plus through 23.09.1, Netgate pfSense CE through 2.7.2, HPN-SSH through 18.2.0, ProFTPD before 1.3.8b (and before 1.3.9rc2), ORYX CycloneSSH before 2.3.4, NetSarang XShell 7 before Build 0144, CrushFTP before 10.6.0, ConnectBot SSH library before 2.2.22, Apache MINA sshd through 2.11.0, sshj through 0.37.0, TinySSH through 20230101, trilead-ssh2 6401, LANCOM LCOS and LANconfig, FileZilla before 3.66.4, Nova before 11.8, PKIX-SSH before 14.4, SecureCRT before 9.4.3, Transmit5 before 5.10.4, Win32-OpenSSH before 9.5.0.0p1-Beta, WinSCP before 6.2.2, Bitvise SSH Server before 9.32, Bitvise SSH Client before 9.33, KiTTY through 0.76.1.13, the net-ssh gem 7.2.0 for Ruby, the mscdex ssh2 module before 1.15.0 for Node.js, the thrussh library before 0.35.1 for Rust, and the Russh crate before 0.40.2 for Rust.12dCVE-2026-435007.8 ALT99.8%
——30In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rxrpc: Also unshare DATA/RESPONSE packets when paged frags are present
The DATA-packet handler in rxrpc_input_call_event() and the RESPONSE
handler in rxrpc_verify_response() copy the skb to a linear one before
calling into the security ops only when skb_cloned() is true. An skb
that is not cloned but still carries externally-owned paged fragments
(e.g. SKBFL_SHARED_FRAG set by splice() into a UDP socket via
__ip_append_data, or a chained skb_has_frag_list()) falls through to
the in-place decryption path, which binds the frag pages directly into
the AEAD/skcipher SGL via skb_to_sgvec().
Extend the gate to also unshare when skb_has_frag_list() or
skb_has_shared_frag() is true. This catches the splice-loopback vector
and other externally-shared frag sources while preserving the
zero-copy fast path for skbs whose frags are kernel-private (e.g. NIC
page_pool RX, GRO). The OOM/trace handling already in place is reused.63dCVE-2023-0050—99.8%
——30——CVE-2017-5753—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-35846—99.8%
——30——CVE-2023-35628—99.8%
——30——CVE-2009-3103—99.8%
——30——CVE-2022-21907—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1425—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-37539—99.8%
——30——CVE-2019-7276—99.8%
——30——CVE-2005-1983—99.8%
——30——CVE-2019-0227—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-27905—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1432—99.8%
——30——CVE-2023-30258—99.8%
——30——CVE-2016-2004—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-31474—99.8%
——30——CVE-2016-7547—99.8%
——30——CVE-2019-15976—99.8%
——30——CVE-2024-8856—99.8%
——30——CVE-2018-16509—99.8%
——30——CVE-2022-4067—99.8%
——30——CVE-2001-0414—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-20080—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-38156—99.8%
——30——CVE-2010-1870—99.8%
——30——CVE-2017-12629—99.8%
——30——CVE-2022-4069—99.8%
——30——CVE-2015-5371—99.8%
——30——CVE-2024-9047—99.8%
——30——CVE-2015-0359—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-46065—99.8%
——30——CVE-2018-6892—99.8%
——30——CVE-2022-1329—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1436—99.8%
——30——CVE-2007-0071—99.8%
——30——CVE-2014-0054—99.8%
——30——CVE-2024-25600—99.8%
——30——CVE-2016-6600—99.8%
——30——