Vulnerabilidades explotables hoy
402,957en 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
- Crítico5,149
- Alto20,192
- Medio18,526
- Bajo1,892
Filtros
Ventana
Severidad
Filtros
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExplotTítuloVis.
CVE-2009-3555—99.8%
——30——CVE-2004-1520—99.8%
——30——CVE-2024-25617—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-37119.8 CRÍ99.8%
——30In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. This can lead to a buffer overflow when EVP_PKEY_decrypt() is called by the application a second time with a buffer that is too small. A malicious attacker who is able present SM2 content for decryption to an application could cause attacker chosen data to overflow the buffer by up to a maximum of 62 bytes altering the contents of other data held after the buffer, possibly changing application behaviour or causing the application to crash. The location of the buffer is application dependent but is typically heap allocated. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1l (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1k).18dCVE-2000-1209—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1428—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-21300—99.8%
——30——CVE-2016-2776—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-15867—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1448—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-8605—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-45456—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-8772—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-9490—99.8%
——30——CVE-2024-26256—99.8%
——30——CVE-2003-0722—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-25683—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-35729—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-53987.5 ALT99.8%
——30In Spring Framework, versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.3, versions 5.1.x prior to 5.1.13, and versions 5.0.x prior to 5.0.16, an application is vulnerable to a reflected file download (RFD) attack when it sets a "Content-Disposition" header in the response where the filename attribute is derived from user supplied input.18dCVE-2023-39361—99.8%
——30——CVE-2018-7584—99.8%
——30——CVE-2009-1429—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-25687—99.8%
——30——CVE-2019-11409—99.8%
——30——CVE-2020-10546—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-21307—99.8%
——30——CVE-2022-1190—99.8%
——30——CVE-2019-2729—99.8%
——30——CVE-2022-24716—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-31643—99.8%
——30——CVE-2019-9515—99.8%
——30——CVE-2021-21699—99.8%
——30——CVE-2018-14417—99.8%
——30——CVE-2017-5487—99.8%
——30——CVE-2014-0221—99.8%
——30——CVE-2004-2687—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1421—99.8%
——30——CVE-2013-2028—99.8%
——30——CVE-2023-21547—99.8%
——30——CVE-2012-1454—99.8%
——30——