Action not permitted
Modal body text goes here.
Modal Title
Modal Body
CVE-2026-75803 (GCVE-0-2026-75803)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-08-25 13:00 – Updated: 2026-09-01 18:23- CWE-354 - Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 9.1,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-75803",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-01T18:22:51.167833Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-01T18:23:06.793Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": "OpenSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4.0.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.6.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.6.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.5.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.4.7",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.22",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Billy Brumley (Rochester Institute of Technology)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Billy Brumley (Rochester Institute of Technology)"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-08-25T15:57:42.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty\u003cbr\u003eciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication\u003cbr\u003etag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and\u003cbr\u003eexpecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one\u003cbr\u003eshot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the\u003cbr\u003edecryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers\u003cbr\u003eit skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to\u003cbr\u003ethe function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful\u003cbr\u003ereturn indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not\u003cbr\u003etruly been validated in this case.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE\u003cbr\u003eas the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented\u003cbr\u003ein the FIPS module."
}
],
"value": "Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty\nciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication\ntag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.\n\nImpact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and\nexpecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.\n\nCWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)\n\nDescription: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one\nshot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the\ndecryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers\nit skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to\nthe function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful\nreturn indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not\ntruly been validated in this case.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE\nas the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented\nin the FIPS module."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"format": "other",
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "Low"
},
"type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-354",
"description": "Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T13:00:25.067Z",
"orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"shortName": "openssl"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
},
{
"name": "4.0.2 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6c7aa6f8f6449b7fe0137ee8be65fcd239bd7d6a"
},
{
"name": "3.6.4 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3621257986e27e540bf96a11570929a6e5a9e05b"
},
{
"name": "3.5.8 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bdeb0cd994d915342787f117ee75044f0dc36f34"
},
{
"name": "3.4.7 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf95f5f772e9362f87b25cfa2f8cb15d984865b9"
},
{
"name": "3.0.22 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/119ab9555dc62275bbd71f6f49529b1a44feba42"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "AEAD Forgeries with Empty Ciphertext When Using EVP_Cipher()",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"assignerShortName": "openssl",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-75803",
"datePublished": "2026-08-25T13:00:25.067Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-18T09:34:32.659Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-01T18:23:06.793Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2026-75803",
"date": "2026-10-03",
"epss": "0.00232",
"percentile": "0.12744"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 9.1,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2026-75803",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-01T18:22:51.167833Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-01T18:23:03.379Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": "OpenSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4.0.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.6.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.6.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.5.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.4.7",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.22",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "reporter",
"value": "Billy Brumley (Rochester Institute of Technology)"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "Billy Brumley (Rochester Institute of Technology)"
}
],
"datePublic": "2026-08-25T15:57:42.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty\u003cbr\u003eciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication\u003cbr\u003etag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImpact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and\u003cbr\u003eexpecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescription: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one\u003cbr\u003eshot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the\u003cbr\u003edecryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers\u003cbr\u003eit skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to\u003cbr\u003ethe function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful\u003cbr\u003ereturn indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not\u003cbr\u003etruly been validated in this case.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eFIPS impact: no\u003cbr\u003eThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE\u003cbr\u003eas the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented\u003cbr\u003ein the FIPS module."
}
],
"value": "Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty\nciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication\ntag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.\n\nImpact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and\nexpecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.\n\nCWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)\n\nDescription: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one\nshot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the\ndecryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers\nit skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to\nthe function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful\nreturn indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not\ntruly been validated in this case.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE\nas the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented\nin the FIPS module."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"format": "other",
"other": {
"content": {
"text": "Low"
},
"type": "https://openssl-library.org/policies/general/security-policy/"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-354",
"description": "Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-08-25T13:00:25.067Z",
"orgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"shortName": "openssl"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "OpenSSL Advisory",
"tags": [
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
},
{
"name": "4.0.2 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6c7aa6f8f6449b7fe0137ee8be65fcd239bd7d6a"
},
{
"name": "3.6.4 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3621257986e27e540bf96a11570929a6e5a9e05b"
},
{
"name": "3.5.8 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bdeb0cd994d915342787f117ee75044f0dc36f34"
},
{
"name": "3.4.7 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf95f5f772e9362f87b25cfa2f8cb15d984865b9"
},
{
"name": "3.0.22 git commit",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/119ab9555dc62275bbd71f6f49529b1a44feba42"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "AEAD Forgeries with Empty Ciphertext When Using EVP_Cipher()",
"x_generator": {
"engine": "Vulnogram 0.2.0"
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "3a12439a-ef3a-4c79-92e6-6081a721f1e5",
"assignerShortName": "openssl",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-75803",
"datePublished": "2026-08-25T13:00:25.067Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-08-18T09:34:32.659Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-01T18:23:06.793Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2"
}
}
}
BELL-CVE-2026-75803 (CVE-2026-75803)
Vulnerability from osv_bellsoft – Published: 2026-08-22 06:05 – Updated: 2026-08-29 06:00 – Source website| URL | Type | |
|---|---|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Alpaquita:23",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:apk/alpaquita/openssl?arch=source\u0026distro=23"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.8-r4"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.22-r0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Alpaquita:25",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:apk/alpaquita/openssl?arch=source\u0026distro=25"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.5.0-r0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.5.8-r0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Alpaquita:stream",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:apk/alpaquita/openssl?arch=source\u0026distro=stream"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.1.1-r1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.5.8-r0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "BellSoft Hardened Containers:23",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:apk/bellsoft-hardened-containers/openssl?arch=source\u0026distro=23"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.8-r4"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.22-r0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "BellSoft Hardened Containers:25",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:apk/bellsoft-hardened-containers/openssl?arch=source\u0026distro=25"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.5.0-r0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.5.8-r0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "BellSoft Hardened Containers:stream",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:apk/bellsoft-hardened-containers/openssl?arch=source\u0026distro=stream"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.1.1-r1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.5.8-r0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"id": "BELL-CVE-2026-75803",
"modified": "2026-08-29T06:00:32.834815Z",
"published": "2026-08-22T06:05:47.2108Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://docs.bell-sw.com/security/cves/CVE-2026-75803"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.7.4",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"upstream": [
"CVE-2026-75803"
]
}
CERTFR-2026-AVI-1079
Vulnerability from certfr_avis - Published: 2026-08-26 - Updated: 2026-08-26
De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans OpenSSL. Elles permettent à un attaquant de provoquer un déni de service à distance et un contournement de la politique de sécurité.
Solutions
Se référer au bulletin de sécurité de l'éditeur pour l'obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation).
| Vendor | Product | Description | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 3.6.x antérieures à 3.6.4 | ||
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 3.4.x antérieures à 3.4.7 | ||
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 3.5.x antérieures à 3.5.8 | ||
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 3.0.x antérieures à 3.0.22 | ||
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 1.0.2x antérieures à 1.0.2zr | ||
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 1.1.1x antérieures à 1.1.1zi | ||
| OpenSSL | OpenSSL | OpenSSL versions 4.0.x antérieures à 4.0.2 |
| Title | Publication Time | Tags | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
{
"$ref": "https://www.cert.ssi.gouv.fr/openapi.json",
"affected_systems": [
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 3.6.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.6.4",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 3.4.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.4.7",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 3.5.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.5.8",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 3.0.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.0.22",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 1.0.2x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 1.0.2zr",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 1.1.1x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 1.1.1zi",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "OpenSSL versions 4.0.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 4.0.2",
"product": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": {
"name": "OpenSSL",
"scada": false
}
}
}
],
"affected_systems_content": "",
"content": "## Solutions\n\nSe r\u00e9f\u00e9rer au bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l\u0027\u00e9diteur pour l\u0027obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation).",
"cves": [
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63074",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63074"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63073",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63073"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14457",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14457"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63075",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63075"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63076",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63076"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18798",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18798"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75803",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75803"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54874",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54874"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63072",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63072"
}
],
"initial_release_date": "2026-08-26T00:00:00",
"last_revision_date": "2026-08-26T00:00:00",
"links": [],
"reference": "CERTFR-2026-AVI-1079",
"revisions": [
{
"description": "Version initiale",
"revision_date": "2026-08-26T00:00:00.000000"
}
],
"risks": [
{
"description": "D\u00e9ni de service \u00e0 distance"
},
{
"description": "Contournement de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9"
}
],
"summary": "De multiples vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9s ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9couvertes dans OpenSSL. Elles permettent \u00e0 un attaquant de provoquer un d\u00e9ni de service \u00e0 distance et un contournement de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9.",
"title": "Multiples vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9s dans OpenSSL",
"vendor_advisories": [
{
"published_at": "2026-08-25",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 OpenSSL",
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
}
]
}
CERTFR-2026-AVI-1249
Vulnerability from certfr_avis - Published: 2026-10-02 - Updated: 2026-10-02
De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans les produits VMware. Elles permettent à un attaquant de provoquer un problème de sécurité non spécifié par l'éditeur.
Solutions
Se référer au bulletin de sécurité de l'éditeur pour l'obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation).
| Vendor | Product | Description | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VMware | Tanzu | VMware Tanzu pour Valkey on Kubernetes versions antérieures à 3.5.1 | ||
| VMware | Tanzu | VMware Tanzu pour Postgres on Kubernetes versions antérieures à 4.5.2 | ||
| VMware | Spring Cloud Gateway | Spring Cloud Gateway pour Kubernetes versions antérieures à 2.2.17 | ||
| VMware | Tanzu | VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions antérieures à 8.0.11 | ||
| VMware | Tanzu | VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions 9.0.x antérieures à 9.0.6 | ||
| VMware | Tanzu | VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions 8.1.x antérieures à 8.1.10 | ||
| VMware | Tanzu | VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions 9.1.x antérieures à 9.1.2 | ||
| VMware | Spring Cloud Data Flow | Spring Cloud Data Flow pour Kubernetes versions antérieures à 1.6.16 |
| Title | Publication Time | Tags | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{
"$ref": "https://www.cert.ssi.gouv.fr/openapi.json",
"affected_systems": [
{
"description": "VMware Tanzu pour Valkey on Kubernetes versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.5.1",
"product": {
"name": "Tanzu",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "VMware Tanzu pour Postgres on Kubernetes versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 4.5.2",
"product": {
"name": "Tanzu",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Spring Cloud Gateway pour Kubernetes versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 2.2.17",
"product": {
"name": "Spring Cloud Gateway",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 8.0.11",
"product": {
"name": "Tanzu",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions 9.0.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 9.0.6",
"product": {
"name": "Tanzu",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions 8.1.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 8.1.10",
"product": {
"name": "Tanzu",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "VMware Tanzu pour Valkey versions 9.1.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 9.1.2",
"product": {
"name": "Tanzu",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Spring Cloud Data Flow pour Kubernetes versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 1.6.16",
"product": {
"name": "Spring Cloud Data Flow",
"vendor": {
"name": "VMware",
"scada": false
}
}
}
],
"affected_systems_content": "",
"content": "## Solutions\n\nSe r\u00e9f\u00e9rer au bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l\u0027\u00e9diteur pour l\u0027obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation).",
"cves": [
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75595",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75595"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53910",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53910"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56404",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56404"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58055",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58055"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61730",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61730"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54369",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54369"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58183",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58183"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11940",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11940"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56862",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56862"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53613",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53613"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102271",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102271"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42507",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42507"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33818",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33818"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39830",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39830"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63384",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63384"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34180",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34180"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68763",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68763"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33186",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33186"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39826",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39826"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-80489",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-80489"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42766",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42766"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13346",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13346"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56846",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56846"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-9076",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9076"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22872",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22872"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15310",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15310"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42508",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42508"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-84445",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84445"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-1965",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-1965"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34181",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34181"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-97687",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-97687"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-81870",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-81870"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58013",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58013"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32288",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32288"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-47907",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-47907"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59885",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59885"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42770",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42770"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-91776",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-91776"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27138",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27138"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39822",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39822"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39833",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39833"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-3783",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3783"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13221",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13221"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33814",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33814"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27456",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27456"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63074",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63074"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68569",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68569"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59084",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59084"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58185",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58185"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65183",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65183"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14257",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14257"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61731",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61731"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58015",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58015"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27137",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27137"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27143",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27143"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-46600",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-46600"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-69152",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69152"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45445",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45445"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68525",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68525"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18508",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18508"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39832",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39832"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39829",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39829"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56392",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56392"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65637",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65637"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-15367",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-15367"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58014",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58014"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-45341",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-45341"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13595",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13595"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6357",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6357"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54515",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54515"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63374",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63374"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13757",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13757"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15308",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15308"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27145",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27145"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68497",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68497"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39834",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39834"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63073",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63073"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2022-40897",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-40897"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-46595",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-46595"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41992",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41992"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-24051",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24051"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102265",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102265"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-7383",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-7383"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39825",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39825"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39821",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39821"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27144",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27144"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-4360",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-4360"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58012",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58012"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56865",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56865"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32283",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32283"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-46686",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-46686"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61727",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61727"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11822",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11822"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22866",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22866"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59890",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59890"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14164",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14164"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14456",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14456"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56860",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56860"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6368",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6368"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-1703",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-1703"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14457",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14457"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15534",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15534"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41991",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41991"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39883",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39883"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6879",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6879"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102269",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102269"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32281",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32281"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75596",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75596"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-8763",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8763"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27142",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27142"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41989",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41989"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42504",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42504"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56412",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56412"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-69247",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69247"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-47906",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-47906"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-48864",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-48864"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65182",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65182"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56858",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56858"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12003",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12003"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53615",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53615"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15588",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15588"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59903",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59903"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102268",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102268"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-25589",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-25589"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58188",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58188"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102267",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102267"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-4674",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-4674"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-57433",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-57433"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39820",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39820"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56854",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56854"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-84303",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84303"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-5278",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-5278"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32952",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32952"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73180",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73180"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39819",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39819"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58010",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58010"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16118",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16118"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42769",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42769"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-6141",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-6141"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-19672",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-19672"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-45336",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-45336"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-25588",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-25588"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22868",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22868"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5435",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5435"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61724",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61724"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-3219",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3219"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11824",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11824"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-2303",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2303"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61732",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61732"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-101917",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-101917"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61723",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61723"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5928",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5928"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39831",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39831"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102273",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102273"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39828",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39828"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45447",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45447"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-6170",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-6170"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-25679",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-25679"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33811",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33811"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-45337",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-45337"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61725",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61725"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63075",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63075"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-25680",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-25680"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-87910",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-87910"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39835",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39835"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64847",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64847"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33815",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33815"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59884",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59884"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-4539",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-4539"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12087",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12087"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-15366",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-15366"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32289",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32289"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56848",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56848"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45446",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45446"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-91777",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-91777"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58011",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58011"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63382",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63382"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22874",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22874"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-84304",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84304"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56405",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56405"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63076",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63076"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32280",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32280"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-47912",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-47912"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58016",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58016"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63383",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63383"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-2236",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-2236"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6653",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6653"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56859",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56859"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61728",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61728"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-66422",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66422"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58186",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58186"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18798",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18798"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56853",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56853"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34183",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34183"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-8869",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-8869"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58187",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58187"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-77117",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-77117"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13506",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13506"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42505",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42505"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49844",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49844"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-4673",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-4673"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102266",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102266"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54370",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54370"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22871",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22871"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-29181",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-29181"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39836",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39836"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6791",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6791"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56408",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56408"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6477",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6477"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42767",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42767"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-97689",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-97689"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-50219",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-50219"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102270",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102270"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6238",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6238"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-0864",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0864"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63379",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63379"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56403",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56403"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-17084",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-17084"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39882",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39882"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58181",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58181"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59886",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59886"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-47914",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-47914"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-66299",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66299"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11979",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11979"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22869",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22869"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63385",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63385"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58189",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58189"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63387",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63387"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27140",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27140"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39817",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39817"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65905",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65905"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42499",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42499"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42764",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42764"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-82049",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-82049"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22870",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22870"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75803",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75803"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-8643",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8643"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-19487",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-19487"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41889",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41889"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27139",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27139"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42501",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42501"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-101918",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-101918"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42250",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42250"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65927",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65927"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-46598",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-46598"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-48924",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-48924"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33810",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33810"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42768",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42768"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15806",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15806"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-57432",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-57432"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-32282",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-32282"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63381",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63381"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11972",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11972"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58043",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58043"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-68121",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-68121"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12912",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12912"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18477",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18477"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-11065",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-11065"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-46597",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-46597"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102274",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102274"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61726",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61726"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5704",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5704"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34182",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34182"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18503",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18503"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-19542",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-19542"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63388",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63388"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-9547",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9547"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-19032",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-19032"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33816",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33816"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56132",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56132"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54874",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54874"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18938",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18938"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54272",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54272"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-69192",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69192"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-97688",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-97688"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54371",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54371"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2023-5752",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-5752"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39827",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39827"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-102272",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-102272"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-22873",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22873"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-47273",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-47273"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-8286",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8286"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39823",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39823"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-61729",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-61729"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-83557",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-83557"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-6345",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-6345"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63072",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63072"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-77310",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-77310"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-103001",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-103001"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59889",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59889"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56864",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56864"
}
],
"initial_release_date": "2026-10-02T00:00:00",
"last_revision_date": "2026-10-02T00:00:00",
"links": [],
"reference": "CERTFR-2026-AVI-1249",
"revisions": [
{
"description": "Version initiale",
"revision_date": "2026-10-02T00:00:00.000000"
}
],
"risks": [
{
"description": "Non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9 par l\u0027\u00e9diteur"
}
],
"summary": "De multiples vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9s ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9couvertes dans les produits VMware. Elles permettent \u00e0 un attaquant de provoquer un probl\u00e8me de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9 par l\u0027\u00e9diteur.",
"title": "Multiples vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9s dans les produits VMware",
"vendor_advisories": [
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39113",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39113"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39112",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39112"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39110",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39110"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39115",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39115"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39114",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39114"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39109",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39109"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware DSA-2026-31",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39108"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-10-01",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 VMware 39111",
"url": "https://support.broadcom.com/web/ecx/support-content-notification/-/external/content/SecurityAdvisories/0/39111"
}
]
}
CERTFR-2026-AVI-1256
Vulnerability from certfr_avis - Published: 2026-10-02 - Updated: 2026-10-02
De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans les produits IBM. Certaines d'entre elles permettent à un attaquant de provoquer une exécution de code arbitraire à distance, une élévation de privilèges et un déni de service à distance.
Solutions
Se référer au bulletin de sécurité de l'éditeur pour l'obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation).
| Vendor | Product | Description | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBM | QRadar Deployment Intelligence App | QRadar Deployment Intelligence App versions antérieures à 3.0.20 | ||
| IBM | AIX | AIX version 7.2 sans les derniers correctifs de sécurité | ||
| IBM | QRadar SIEM | QRadar SIEM versions 7.5.x antérieures à 7.5.0 UP16 IF01 | ||
| IBM | Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition | Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition versions 6.2.4.x antérieures à 6.2.4.5 | ||
| IBM | QRadar Pre-Validation App | QRadar Pre-Validation App versions antérieures à 3.0.0 | ||
| IBM | QRadar Use Case Manager App | QRadar Use Case Manager App versions antérieures à 4.2.0 | ||
| IBM | QRadar SIEM | QRadar SIEM versions 7.6.x antérieures à 7.6.0.4 | ||
| IBM | Sterling Secure Proxy | Sterling Secure Proxy versions 6.2.x antérieures à 6.2.1.3 | ||
| IBM | QRadar Threat Intelligence | QRadar Threat Intelligence versions antérieures à 2.6.0 | ||
| IBM | Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Standard Edition | Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Standard Edition versions 6.2.4.x antérieures à 6.2.4.5 | ||
| IBM | Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition | Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition versions 6.3.0.x antérieures à 6.3.0.3 | ||
| IBM | AIX | AIX version 7.3 sans les derniers correctifs de sécurité | ||
| IBM | VIOS | VIOS version 4.1 sans le dernier correctif de sécurité | ||
| IBM | Sterling Secure Proxy | Sterling Secure Proxy versions 6.1.x antérieures à 6.1.0.5 |
| Title | Publication Time | Tags | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{
"$ref": "https://www.cert.ssi.gouv.fr/openapi.json",
"affected_systems": [
{
"description": "QRadar Deployment Intelligence App versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.0.20",
"product": {
"name": "QRadar Deployment Intelligence App",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "AIX version 7.2 sans les derniers correctifs de s\u00e9curit\u00e9",
"product": {
"name": "AIX",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "QRadar SIEM versions 7.5.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 7.5.0 UP16 IF01",
"product": {
"name": "QRadar SIEM",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition versions 6.2.4.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 6.2.4.5",
"product": {
"name": "Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "QRadar Pre-Validation App versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 3.0.0",
"product": {
"name": "QRadar Pre-Validation App",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "QRadar Use Case Manager App versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 4.2.0",
"product": {
"name": "QRadar Use Case Manager App",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "QRadar SIEM versions 7.6.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 7.6.0.4",
"product": {
"name": "QRadar SIEM",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Sterling Secure Proxy versions 6.2.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 6.2.1.3",
"product": {
"name": "Sterling Secure Proxy",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "QRadar Threat Intelligence versions ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 2.6.0",
"product": {
"name": "QRadar Threat Intelligence",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Standard Edition versions 6.2.4.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 6.2.4.5",
"product": {
"name": "Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Standard Edition",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition versions 6.3.0.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 6.3.0.3",
"product": {
"name": "Sterling Partner Engagement Manager Essentials Edition",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "AIX version 7.3 sans les derniers correctifs de s\u00e9curit\u00e9",
"product": {
"name": "AIX",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "VIOS version 4.1 sans le dernier correctif de s\u00e9curit\u00e9",
"product": {
"name": "VIOS",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
},
{
"description": "Sterling Secure Proxy versions 6.1.x ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 6.1.0.5",
"product": {
"name": "Sterling Secure Proxy",
"vendor": {
"name": "IBM",
"scada": false
}
}
}
],
"affected_systems_content": "",
"content": "## Solutions\n\nSe r\u00e9f\u00e9rer au bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l\u0027\u00e9diteur pour l\u0027obtention des correctifs (cf. section Documentation).",
"cves": [
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27980",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27980"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58055",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58055"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49978",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49978"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5588",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5588"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-85061",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-85061"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59651",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59651"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45819",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45819"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44578",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44578"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68480",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68480"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-82417",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-82417"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-3449",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3449"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59871",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59871"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11940",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11940"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68388",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68388"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53374",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53374"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42041",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42041"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68763",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68763"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-39902",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-39902"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64268",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64268"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13321",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13321"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-55565",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-55565"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44573",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44573"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16527",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16527"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59648",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59648"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-69153",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69153"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-74581",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-74581"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59848",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59848"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44580",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44580"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-23903",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23903"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59645",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59645"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67314",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67314"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11721",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11721"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54514",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54514"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53399",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53399"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63886",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63886"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58013",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58013"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53185",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53185"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67214",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67214"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12185",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12185"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59874",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59874"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53391",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53391"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-76172",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-76172"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-52924",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-52924"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-77063",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-77063"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-10723",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-10723"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63879",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63879"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41239",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41239"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41305",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41305"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63074",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63074"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68569",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68569"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-4330",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-4330"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65183",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65183"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14257",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14257"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73088",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73088"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63888",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63888"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-2391",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2391"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58015",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58015"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-84375",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84375"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73089",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73089"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53655",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53655"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-69152",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69152"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64189",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64189"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68525",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68525"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67321",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67321"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67313",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67313"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53606",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53606"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53397",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53397"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41988",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41988"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64276",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64276"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58014",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58014"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67315",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67315"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54516",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54516"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67320",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67320"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-23745",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23745"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54515",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54515"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15816",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15816"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53550",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53550"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-59471",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-59471"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16221",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16221"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63913",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63913"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65911",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65911"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18401",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18401"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44494",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44494"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-9323",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9323"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-15284",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-15284"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12860",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12860"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63073",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63073"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65901",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65901"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42036",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42036"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42536",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42536"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59652",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59652"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-61487",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61487"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65903",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65903"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-56602",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-56602"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65900",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65900"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59844",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59844"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-66010",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66010"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75604",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75604"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44572",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44572"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-43871",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-43871"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44690",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44690"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63800",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63800"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2021-23337",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-23337"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5758",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5758"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59949",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59949"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58012",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58012"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34043",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34043"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59880",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59880"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11822",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11822"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-82333",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-82333"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-64718",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-64718"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-43951",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-43951"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-62718",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-62718"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44990",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44990"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49458",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49458"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-4800",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-4800"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65914",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65914"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44631",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44631"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65913",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65913"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59647",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59647"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73086",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73086"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58059",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58059"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-0540",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0540"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-8763",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8763"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-48988",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-48988"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41989",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41989"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-48913",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-48913"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49268",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49268"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33671",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33671"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5598",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5598"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65182",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65182"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42033",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42033"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65912",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65912"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42035",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42035"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58472",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58472"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-56130",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-56130"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18446",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18446"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44495",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44495"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73633",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73633"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15588",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15588"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59850",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59850"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-84292",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84292"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64647",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64647"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64648",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64648"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-46120",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-46120"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49975",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49975"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53329",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53329"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33750",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33750"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5038",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5038"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34478",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34478"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2024-57849",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-57849"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-18525",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-18525"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-2359",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2359"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42043",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42043"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15055",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15055"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64320",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64320"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45822",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45822"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34480",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34480"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-14682",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-14682"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44186",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44186"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73180",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73180"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2022-24999",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-24999"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59869",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59869"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58010",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58010"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-7783",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-7783"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-27152",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-27152"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65904",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65904"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58061",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58061"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-40175",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-40175"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53009",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53009"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49459",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49459"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63884",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63884"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5079",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5079"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64048",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64048"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-68161",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-68161"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-84371",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-84371"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41240",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41240"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67317",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67317"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34479",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34479"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59887",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59887"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-43828",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-43828"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-26960",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-26960"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42040",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42040"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53392",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53392"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64018",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64018"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-4867",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-4867"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-71132",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71132"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11824",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11824"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64191",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64191"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27903",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27903"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58060",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58060"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59875",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59875"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12802",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12802"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34356",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34356"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44581",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44581"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42535",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42535"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54512",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54512"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53189",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53189"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58063",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58063"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-29057",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-29057"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2022-3517",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-3517"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65899",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65899"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67319",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67319"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44577",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44577"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59873",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59873"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-70907",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-70907"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59646",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59646"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-24842",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-24842"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45991",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45991"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58011",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58011"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34355",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34355"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-23950",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23950"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-2327",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2327"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-2950",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-2950"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-3304",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3304"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64641",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64641"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-40895",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-40895"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63076",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63076"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-59250",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-59250"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64645",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64645"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12816",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12816"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59878",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59878"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59888",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59888"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13149",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13149"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-29170",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-29170"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-69873",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-69873"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45970",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45970"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63887",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63887"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16440",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16440"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64496",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64496"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-66422",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-66422"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-68458",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-68458"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16529",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16529"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-55995",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-55995"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-3520",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-3520"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44582",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44582"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-29786",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-29786"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-54518",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-54518"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-15603",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-15603"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44487",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44487"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13506",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13506"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75899",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75899"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42038",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42038"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49844",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49844"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2020-15366",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2020-15366"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42039",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42039"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59879",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59879"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58471",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58471"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-9358",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9358"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-43206",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-43206"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73634",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73634"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59846",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59846"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-33672",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-33672"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-8723",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8723"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75838",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75838"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64219",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64219"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64277",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64277"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53136",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53136"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11979",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11979"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54517",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54517"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-25639",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-25639"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42044",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42044"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65905",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65905"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-53016",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53016"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2018-16487",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2018-16487"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63670",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63670"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-77078",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-77078"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59642",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59642"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75803",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75803"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-17523",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-17523"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64646",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64646"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42034",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42034"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73635",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73635"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-61308",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-61308"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-5889",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-5889"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75931",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75931"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44576",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44576"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54411",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54411"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54513",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54513"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-46653",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-46653"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-71176",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-71176"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65927",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65927"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-68157",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-68157"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59638",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59638"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54518",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54518"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-27789",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-27789"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13676",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13676"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-60589",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-60589"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67312",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67312"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6322",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6322"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-45623",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-45623"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-5078",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-5078"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58062",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58062"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12143",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12143"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67318",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67318"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-26996",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-26996"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44486",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44486"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44119",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44119"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13204",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13204"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64643",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64643"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-49356",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-49356"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42264",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42264"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12803",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12803"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59650",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59650"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-64756",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-64756"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44496",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44496"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-0636",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-0636"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44492",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44492"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-39865",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-39865"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41238",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41238"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-48586",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-48586"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-52991",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-52991"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59847",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59847"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16526",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16526"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-11622",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-11622"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42037",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42037"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64379",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64379"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42042",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42042"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54874",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54874"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67213",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67213"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-13586",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-13586"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64649",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64649"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16524",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16524"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73566",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73566"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-58754",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-58754"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-12590",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-12590"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34477",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34477"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65902",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65902"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-75975",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-75975"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-6321",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-6321"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-48801",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-48801"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44490",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44490"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-69192",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-69192"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59639",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59639"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-58469",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-58469"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-16313",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-16313"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-54371",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-54371"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-68494",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-68494"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44185",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44185"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-29063",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-29063"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-64298",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64298"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-70906",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-70906"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-23901",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-23901"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59845",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59845"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-67316",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-67316"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-14813",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-14813"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-31802",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-31802"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2025-13465",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-13465"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-29167",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-29167"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-41907",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-41907"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-44488",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-44488"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59843",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59843"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-34481",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-34481"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-27904",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-27904"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-8286",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-8286"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-10805",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-10805"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-42338",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-42338"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-83557",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-83557"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-63072",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-63072"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-77310",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-77310"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-65898",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-65898"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-73646",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-73646"
},
{
"name": "CVE-2026-59889",
"url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-59889"
}
],
"initial_release_date": "2026-10-02T00:00:00",
"last_revision_date": "2026-10-02T00:00:00",
"links": [],
"reference": "CERTFR-2026-AVI-1256",
"revisions": [
{
"description": "Version initiale",
"revision_date": "2026-10-02T00:00:00.000000"
}
],
"risks": [
{
"description": "D\u00e9ni de service \u00e0 distance"
},
{
"description": "Injection de code indirecte \u00e0 distance (XSS)"
},
{
"description": "Injection de requ\u00eates ill\u00e9gitimes par rebond (CSRF)"
},
{
"description": "Ex\u00e9cution de code arbitraire \u00e0 distance"
},
{
"description": "Atteinte \u00e0 l\u0027int\u00e9grit\u00e9 des donn\u00e9es"
},
{
"description": "Non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9 par l\u0027\u00e9diteur"
},
{
"description": "Falsification de requ\u00eates c\u00f4t\u00e9 serveur (SSRF)"
},
{
"description": "Contournement de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9"
},
{
"description": "Atteinte \u00e0 la confidentialit\u00e9 des donn\u00e9es"
},
{
"description": "\u00c9l\u00e9vation de privil\u00e8ges"
}
],
"summary": "De multiples vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9s ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9couvertes dans les produits IBM. Certaines d\u0027entre elles permettent \u00e0 un attaquant de provoquer une ex\u00e9cution de code arbitraire \u00e0 distance, une \u00e9l\u00e9vation de privil\u00e8ges et un d\u00e9ni de service \u00e0 distance.",
"title": "Multiples vuln\u00e9rabilit\u00e9s dans les produits IBM",
"vendor_advisories": [
{
"published_at": "2026-09-25",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289582",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289582"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-28",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289781",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289781"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-28",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289777",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289777"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-30",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7290182",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7290182"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-25",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289579",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289579"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-28",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289712",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289712"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-28",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289828",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289828"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-25",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289581",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289581"
},
{
"published_at": "2026-09-25",
"title": "Bulletin de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 IBM 7289547",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7289547"
}
]
}
FKIE_CVE-2026-75803
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-25 13:19 - Updated: 2026-09-11 21:17{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "OpenSSL",
"vendor": "OpenSSL",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "4.0.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.6.4",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.6.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.5.8",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.5.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.4.7",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.4.0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThan": "3.0.22",
"status": "affected",
"version": "3.0.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org"
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "5DAAFBD8-3DEE-4F6B-8D83-02966005168A",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.0.22",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.0.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "216D6529-561A-4684-A886-50954FBEBFB2",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.4.7",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.4.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "C5BB9E95-09B6-4163-B51C-D62B528A04DA",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.5.8",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.5.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "B1416826-F2F1-4EA8-9FB2-A56B0DA923C1",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.6.4",
"versionStartIncluding": "3.6.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:openssl:openssl:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "63B8F45B-E44F-481C-815D-AF9CA89C48F6",
"versionEndExcluding": "4.0.2",
"versionStartIncluding": "4.0.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty\nciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication\ntag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.\n\nImpact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and\nexpecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.\n\nCWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)\n\nDescription: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one\nshot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the\ndecryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers\nit skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to\nthe function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful\nreturn indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not\ntruly been validated in this case.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE\nas the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented\nin the FIPS module."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-75803",
"lastModified": "2026-09-11T21:17:17.823",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 9.1,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
"impactScore": 5.2,
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-75803",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "yes"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "total"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-09-01T18:22:51.167833Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-08-25T13:19:29.570",
"references": [
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/119ab9555dc62275bbd71f6f49529b1a44feba42"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3621257986e27e540bf96a11570929a6e5a9e05b"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6c7aa6f8f6449b7fe0137ee8be65fcd239bd7d6a"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bdeb0cd994d915342787f117ee75044f0dc36f34"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf95f5f772e9362f87b25cfa2f8cb15d984865b9"
},
{
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"tags": [
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-354"
}
],
"source": "openssl-security@openssl.org",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
GHSA-VR27-9W4V-HJW2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-25 15:32 – Updated: 2026-09-01 21:31Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty ciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication tag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.
Impact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and expecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.
CWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)
Description: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one shot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the decryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers it skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to the function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful return indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not truly been validated in this case.
FIPS impact: no The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE as the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented in the FIPS module.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-75803"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-25T13:19:29Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Issue summary: ChaCha20-Poly1305 and AES-OCB decryption with an empty\nciphertext can report success without verifying the supplied authentication\ntag when the operation is finalized by calling the EVP_Cipher() function.\n\nImpact summary: Applications calling EVP_Cipher() on an empty ciphertext and\nexpecting the call to check the AEAD tag may accept forged messages.\n\nCWE: CWE-354 (Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)\n\nDescription: The EVP_Cipher() API call for AEAD ciphers behaves like a one\nshot encryption and decryption call. It also verifies the AEAD tag after the\ndecryption operation. However for AES-OCB and ChaCha20-Poly1305 ciphers\nit skipped the AEAD tag verification when an empty ciphertext was passed to\nthe function. The callers of this function might believe that a successful\nreturn indicates a valid AEAD tag for these ciphers, even when that has not\ntruly been validated in this case.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this CVE\nas the affected algorithms are not FIPS approved and thus not implemented\nin the FIPS module.",
"id": "GHSA-vr27-9w4v-hjw2",
"modified": "2026-09-01T21:31:22Z",
"published": "2026-08-25T15:32:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75803"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/119ab9555dc62275bbd71f6f49529b1a44feba42"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/3621257986e27e540bf96a11570929a6e5a9e05b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/6c7aa6f8f6449b7fe0137ee8be65fcd239bd7d6a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bdeb0cd994d915342787f117ee75044f0dc36f34"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bf95f5f772e9362f87b25cfa2f8cb15d984865b9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20260825.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
OESA-2026-3624 (CVE-2026-63074)
Vulnerability from osv_openeuler – Published: 2026-09-05 15:03 – Updated: 2026-09-05 15:03 – Source websiteOpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.
Security Fix(es):
Issue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches additional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges them (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX frequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious client may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.
Impact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX for the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the event a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra certificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of extraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains in the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with long lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends messages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates repeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.
The issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is rejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do caching at all.
FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63074)
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only checks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its ASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can contain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an invalid pointer.
Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application acting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client talking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of Service.
CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
Description: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP message, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with X509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value pointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the expected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The parameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted.
This happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so no knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is that PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from OSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP server accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP response validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The reliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure, no controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a specialized feature that an application must explicitly enable.
FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63076)
A vulnerability was discovered in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. The vulnerability affects unknown processing logic of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=save_menu. Manipulation of the img parameter results in arbitrary file uploads. Attackers can launch attacks remotely. The exploit code for this vulnerability has been made public and may be exploited.(CVE-2026-75803)
| URL | Type | |
|---|---|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"aarch64": [
"openssl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-debuginfo-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-debugsource-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-devel-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-libs-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-perl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.aarch64.rpm"
],
"noarch": [
"openssl-help-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.noarch.rpm"
],
"src": [
"openssl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.src.rpm"
],
"x86_64": [
"openssl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-debuginfo-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-debugsource-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-devel-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-libs-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-perl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1.x86_64.rpm"
]
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP1",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:rpm/openEuler/openssl\u0026distro=openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP1"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.12-53.oe2403sp1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"database_specific": {
"severity": "High"
},
"details": "OpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIssue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches\nadditional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges\nthem (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX\nfrequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious\nclient may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.\n\nImpact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX\nfor the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the\nevent a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra\ncertificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of\nextraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains\nin the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with\nlong lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends\nmessages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates\nrepeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.\n \nThe issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is\nrejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do\ncaching at all.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nAs the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS\nmodules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63074)\n\nIssue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only\nchecks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its\nASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can\ncontain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an\ninvalid pointer.\n\nImpact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application\nacting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client\ntalking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of\nService.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\n\nDescription: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP\nmessage, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with\nX509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value\npointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the\nexpected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The\nparameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted.\n\nThis happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so\nno knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is\nthat PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from\nOSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP\nserver accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP\nresponse validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The\nreliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure,\nno controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a\nspecialized feature that an application must explicitly enable.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nAs the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules\nare affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63076)\n\nA vulnerability was discovered in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. The vulnerability affects unknown processing logic of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=save_menu. Manipulation of the img parameter results in arbitrary file uploads. Attackers can launch attacks remotely. The exploit code for this vulnerability has been made public and may be exploited.(CVE-2026-75803)",
"id": "OESA-2026-3624",
"modified": "2026-09-05T15:03:15Z",
"published": "2026-09-05T15:03:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-3624"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63074"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63076"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75803"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.7.2",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "openssl security update",
"upstream": [
"CVE-2026-63074",
"CVE-2026-63076",
"CVE-2026-75803"
]
}
OESA-2026-3625 (CVE-2026-63074)
Vulnerability from osv_openeuler – Published: 2026-09-05 15:03 – Updated: 2026-09-05 15:03 – Source websiteOpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.
Security Fix(es):
Issue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches additional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges them (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX frequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious client may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.
Impact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX for the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the event a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra certificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of extraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains in the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with long lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends messages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates repeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.
The issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is rejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do caching at all.
FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63074)
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only checks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its ASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can contain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an invalid pointer.
Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application acting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client talking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of Service.
CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
Description: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP message, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with X509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value pointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the expected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The parameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted.
This happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so no knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is that PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from OSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP server accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP response validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The reliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure, no controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a specialized feature that an application must explicitly enable.
FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63076)
A vulnerability was discovered in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. The vulnerability affects unknown processing logic of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=save_menu. Manipulation of the img parameter results in arbitrary file uploads. Attackers can launch attacks remotely. The exploit code for this vulnerability has been made public and may be exploited.(CVE-2026-75803)
| URL | Type | |
|---|---|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"aarch64": [
"openssl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-debuginfo-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-debugsource-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-devel-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-libs-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-perl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.aarch64.rpm"
],
"noarch": [
"openssl-help-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.noarch.rpm"
],
"src": [
"openssl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.src.rpm"
],
"x86_64": [
"openssl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-debuginfo-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-debugsource-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-devel-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-libs-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-perl-3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3.x86_64.rpm"
]
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP3",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:rpm/openEuler/openssl\u0026distro=openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP3"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.12-53.oe2403sp3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"database_specific": {
"severity": "High"
},
"details": "OpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIssue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches\nadditional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges\nthem (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX\nfrequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious\nclient may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.\n\nImpact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX\nfor the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the\nevent a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra\ncertificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of\nextraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains\nin the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with\nlong lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends\nmessages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates\nrepeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.\n \nThe issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is\nrejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do\ncaching at all.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nAs the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS\nmodules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63074)\n\nIssue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only\nchecks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its\nASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can\ncontain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an\ninvalid pointer.\n\nImpact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application\nacting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client\ntalking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of\nService.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\n\nDescription: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP\nmessage, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with\nX509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value\npointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the\nexpected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The\nparameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted.\n\nThis happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so\nno knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is\nthat PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from\nOSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP\nserver accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP\nresponse validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The\nreliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure,\nno controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a\nspecialized feature that an application must explicitly enable.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nAs the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules\nare affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63076)\n\nA vulnerability was discovered in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. The vulnerability affects unknown processing logic of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=save_menu. Manipulation of the img parameter results in arbitrary file uploads. Attackers can launch attacks remotely. The exploit code for this vulnerability has been made public and may be exploited.(CVE-2026-75803)",
"id": "OESA-2026-3625",
"modified": "2026-09-05T15:03:16Z",
"published": "2026-09-05T15:03:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-3625"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63074"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63076"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75803"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.7.2",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "openssl security update",
"upstream": [
"CVE-2026-63074",
"CVE-2026-63076",
"CVE-2026-75803"
]
}
OESA-2026-3830 (CVE-2026-14457)
Vulnerability from osv_openeuler – Published: 2026-09-14 16:34 – Updated: 2026-09-14 16:34 – Source websiteOpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.
Security Fix(es):
Issue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs) enabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally, a NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and also sends the typically omitted "signature_algorithms_cert" TLS extension.
Impact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of an application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.
CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
Description: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests that key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration is to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or signed by any convenient CA).
When the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the "signature_algorithms_cert" extension is handled reliably even without the fix, and peer clients or servers that don't support raw public keys may be able to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding certificate or its public key.
Deployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate need to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.
FIPS impact: no
No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-14457)
Issue summary: QUIC server may double free QRX (QUIC record layer RX) object when channel creation fails for initial packet.
Impact summary: Double free leads to heap corruption, which typically results in termination of QUIC server process, leading to Denial of Service. There is so far no evidence that this double free is exploitable for remote code execution, thus it is considered highly improbable.
CWE: CWE-415: Double Free
Description: In order to validate initial packet, OpenSSL QUIC stack default packet handler (port_default_packet_handler()) creates a so-called QRX object. If the initial packet validates successfully with QRX object, the default packet handler proceeds to channel (connection object) creation. The QRX object used for packet validation is passed to port_bind_channel(), so it becomes part of the newly created connection. If port_bind_channel() fails, then it also frees the QRX object. Once port_bind_channel() returns, the port_default_packet_handler() detects the failure and proceeds to the error branch, where the same QRX object is freed for the second time.
The failure in port_bind_channel() function can be induced with a relatively low effort by a malformed (non RFC 9000 compliant) INITIAL packet. If the packet carries DCID (destination connection ID) which is shorter than 8 bytes, then port_bind_channel() jumps to the error path after ossl_quic_lcidm_enrol_odcid() detects that the DCID has invalid length.
FIPS impact: no The FIPS module is not affected, as the QUIC implementation is outside of the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-18798)
Issue summary: Receiving a DTLS record for a future epoch while a handshake is in progress causes OpenSSL to buffer far more memory than the record itself requires.
Impact summary: A peer can use a small amount of network traffic to make an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint retain a disproportionately large amount of memory, which may lead to a Denial of Service.
CWE: CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)
Description: While a DTLS handshake is in progress, a peer may legitimately have already moved on to the next epoch (for example, having sent its ChangeCipherSpec and Finished messages) before the local endpoint has processed the same transition, typically because of reordering on the underlying UDP transport. OpenSSL buffers such early records so that they can be processed once the local endpoint catches up.
Buffering a record currently retains the entire read buffer it arrived in, which is sized to hold the largest possible DTLS record (around 16 kilobytes), rather than just the bytes that make up the record itself. Up to 100 such records may be buffered per connection. As a result, a peer that sends a stream of small forged records claiming to belong to the next epoch can cause an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint to retain around 1.7 megabytes of memory, despite sending only a small fraction of that amount of data over the network.
An attacker therefore gains a memory amplification factor of around 1200, and can multiply the effect across as many associations as it is able to open, making this a remote memory exhaustion Denial of Service risk for DTLS servers. Since the memory retained per connection remains bounded, and any limit an application already places on the number of concurrent associations also bounds the total exposure, this issue has been assessed as Low severity.
FIPS impact: no
No FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
OpenSSL 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are vulnerable to this issue.
OpenSSL 4.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 4.0.2. OpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.4. OpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.8. OpenSSL 3.4 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.4.7. OpenSSL 3.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.0.22.
Premium support customers only: OpenSSL 1.1.1 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.1.1zi OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.0.2zr
This issue was reported on 18 May 2026 by Amazon Web Services. The fix has been developed by Matt Caswell.
-- cut (non-publishing metadata for internal use) -- Reported by: Amazon Web Services Fixed by: Matt Caswell(CVE-2026-54874)
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMS decryption sizes the key-unwrap output buffer based on querying the unwrapped key size, but the AES-WRAP-PAD unwrap primitive can write and cleanse more bytes than that query reports, causing an 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write.
Impact summary: An attacker who supplies a crafted CMS message can trigger a deterministic 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write when the victim decrypts it with CMS_decrypt(), corrupting the heap and typically resulting in a Denial of Service.
CWE: CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
Description: The key-wrap OID is potentially attacker-controlled on the wire. CMS unwrapping allows both id-aesNNN-wrap-pad and id-aesNNN-wrap ciphers. An attacker can take a legitimate message and change a single OID byte to select the padded variant while leaving the message otherwise valid. Since the unwrap key is derived from the recipient's private operation (ECDH key agreement or ML-KEM decapsulation), the RFC 5649 integrity check cannot pass, and the decryption fails with integrity failure.
The write is a fixed-size (8-byte), fixed-value (zero) heap overflow immediately past the allocation, requires no special configuration, and is reachable from the public CMS_decrypt() function. The consequence is a heap corruption leading to a Denial of Service. The fix in the CMS code sizes the unwrap output buffer for the worst case so a failed unwrap cannot write past the allocation.
FIPS impact: no
As the CMS code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63072)
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response
sender distinguished name directly as the format string to ERR_raise_data().
Impact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client that enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose subject becomes the default expected sender.
CWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String)
Description: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update() converts the peer-supplied sender distinguished name with X509_NAME_oneline() and passes it directly as the format argument to ERR_raise_data(). Percent characters survive the conversion, so a sender DN such as "CN=%s%n" reaches BIO_vsnprintf() as an attacker-controlled format string with no matching variadic arguments. This path is only reached when the caller configures an expected sender or pins a server certificate, which is the normal configuration for a CMP client validating server responses.
Since the attacker controls the format string but none of the variadic arguments, such specifiers as %s and %n dereference or write through unrelated stack contents and crash the client. The reliable consequence is a denial of service, when the response comes from a malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint. There is no controlled memory write, arbitrary-address read, or reliable path to remote code execution.
FIPS impact: no
No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-63073)
Issue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches additional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges them (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX frequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious client may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.
Impact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX for the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the event a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra certificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of extraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains in the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with long lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends messages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates repeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.
The issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is rejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do caching at all.
FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63074)
Issue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly sends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the QUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the connection.
Impact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can cause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service through memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent QUIC connections.
CWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Description: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet, there is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge that ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL implementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless. In and of itself that's ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and then drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the OpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames), and then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like legitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth on the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.
The fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only packet in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing the ACK-only packet metadata itself.
FIPS impact: no The OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is outside the FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-63075)
Issue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only checks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its ASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can contain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an invalid pointer.
Impact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application acting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client talking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of Service.
CWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
Description: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP message, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with X509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value pointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the expected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The parameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted.
This happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so no knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is that PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from OSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP server accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP response validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The reliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure, no controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a specialized feature that an application must explicitly enable.
FIPS impact: no As the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63076)
A vulnerability was discovered in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. The vulnerability affects unknown processing logic of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=save_menu. Manipulation of the img parameter results in arbitrary file uploads. Attackers can launch attacks remotely. The exploit code for this vulnerability has been made public and may be exploited.(CVE-2026-75803)
{
"affected": [
{
"ecosystem_specific": {
"aarch64": [
"openssl-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-debuginfo-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-debugsource-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-devel-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-libs-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.aarch64.rpm",
"openssl-perl-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.aarch64.rpm"
],
"noarch": [
"openssl-help-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.noarch.rpm"
],
"src": [
"openssl-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.src.rpm"
],
"x86_64": [
"openssl-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-debuginfo-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-debugsource-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-devel-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-libs-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.x86_64.rpm",
"openssl-perl-3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4.x86_64.rpm"
]
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "openEuler:24.03-LTS-SP4",
"name": "openssl",
"purl": "pkg:rpm/openEuler/openssl\u0026distro=openEuler-24.03-LTS-SP4"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.5.6-7.oe2403sp4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"database_specific": {
"severity": "High"
},
"details": "OpenSSL is a robust, commercial-grade, and full-featured toolkit for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols.\r\n\r\nSecurity Fix(es):\n\nIssue summary: In a server or client configuration with RFC7250 Raw Public Keys (RPKs)\nenabled, and only the private key (with no associated certificate) configured locally,\na NULL pointer dereference may occur when the remote peer solicits raw public keys and\nalso sends the typically omitted \u0026quot;signature_algorithms_cert\u0026quot; TLS extension.\n\nImpact summary: The impact is limited to a possible Denial of Service as a result of\nan application abort, no data disclosure or remote command execution are possible.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\n\nDescription: While a passing comment in sample code in the documentation suggests\nthat key-only RPK configurations are supported, the best-practice RPK configuration\nis to always configure a corresponding certificate (possibly self-signed or\nsigned by any convenient CA).\n\nWhen the private key is configured along with a matching certificate, the\n\u0026quot;signature_algorithms_cert\u0026quot; extension is handled reliably even without the\nfix, and peer clients or servers that don\u0026apos;t support raw public keys may be\nable to complete a TLS connection by pinning or verifying the corresponding\ncertificate or its public key.\n\nDeployments that prefer to configure just a private key with no certificate\nneed to upgrade to an updated release as noted below.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the SSL protocol implementation\nis outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-14457)\n\nIssue summary: QUIC server may double free QRX (QUIC record layer RX) object\nwhen channel creation fails for initial packet.\n\nImpact summary: Double free leads to heap corruption, which typically results in \ntermination of QUIC server process, leading to Denial of Service. There is so\nfar no evidence that this double free is exploitable for remote code execution,\nthus it is considered highly improbable.\n\nCWE: CWE-415: Double Free\n\nDescription: In order to validate initial packet, OpenSSL QUIC stack default\npacket handler (port_default_packet_handler()) creates a so-called QRX object.\nIf the initial packet validates successfully with QRX object, the default packet\nhandler proceeds to channel (connection object) creation. The QRX object used\nfor packet validation is passed to port_bind_channel(), so it becomes part of\nthe newly created connection. If port_bind_channel() fails, then it also frees\nthe QRX object. Once port_bind_channel() returns, the port_default_packet_handler()\ndetects the failure and proceeds to the error branch, where the same QRX object is\nfreed for the second time.\n\nThe failure in port_bind_channel() function can be induced with a relatively\nlow effort by a malformed (non RFC 9000 compliant) INITIAL packet. If the packet\ncarries DCID (destination connection ID) which is shorter than 8 bytes, then\nport_bind_channel() jumps to the error path after ossl_quic_lcidm_enrol_odcid()\ndetects that the DCID has invalid length.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe FIPS module is not affected, as the QUIC implementation is outside of\nthe OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-18798)\n\nIssue summary: Receiving a DTLS record for a future epoch while a handshake\nis in progress causes OpenSSL to buffer far more memory than the record\nitself requires.\n\nImpact summary: A peer can use a small amount of network traffic to make an\nOpenSSL DTLS endpoint retain a disproportionately large amount of memory,\nwhich may lead to a Denial of Service.\n\nCWE: CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)\n\nDescription: While a DTLS handshake is in progress, a peer may legitimately\nhave already moved on to the next epoch (for example, having sent its\nChangeCipherSpec and Finished messages) before the local endpoint has\nprocessed the same transition, typically because of reordering on the\nunderlying UDP transport. OpenSSL buffers such early records so that they\ncan be processed once the local endpoint catches up.\n\nBuffering a record currently retains the entire read buffer it arrived in,\nwhich is sized to hold the largest possible DTLS record (around 16\nkilobytes), rather than just the bytes that make up the record itself. Up\nto 100 such records may be buffered per connection. As a result, a peer\nthat sends a stream of small forged records claiming to belong to the next\nepoch can cause an OpenSSL DTLS endpoint to retain around 1.7 megabytes of\nmemory, despite sending only a small fraction of that amount of data over\nthe network.\n\nAn attacker therefore gains a memory amplification factor of around 1200,\nand can multiply the effect across as many associations as it is able to\nopen, making this a remote memory exhaustion Denial of Service risk for\nDTLS servers. Since the memory retained per connection remains bounded,\nand any limit an application already places on the number of concurrent\nassociations also bounds the total exposure, this issue has been assessed\nas Low severity.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue as the affected code is outside\nthe OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.\n\nOpenSSL 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.0, 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are vulnerable to this\nissue.\n\nOpenSSL 4.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 4.0.2.\nOpenSSL 3.6 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.6.4.\nOpenSSL 3.5 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.5.8.\nOpenSSL 3.4 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.4.7.\nOpenSSL 3.0 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 3.0.22.\n\nPremium support customers only:\nOpenSSL 1.1.1 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.1.1zi\nOpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to OpenSSL 1.0.2zr\n\nThis issue was reported on 18 May 2026 by Amazon Web Services.\nThe fix has been developed by Matt Caswell.\n\n-- cut (non-publishing metadata for internal use) --\nReported by: Amazon Web Services\nFixed by: Matt Caswell(CVE-2026-54874)\n\nIssue summary: OpenSSL CMS decryption sizes the key-unwrap output buffer based\non querying the unwrapped key size, but the AES-WRAP-PAD unwrap primitive\ncan write and cleanse more bytes than that query reports, causing an 8-byte\nout-of-bounds heap write.\n\nImpact summary: An attacker who supplies a crafted CMS message can trigger a\ndeterministic 8-byte out-of-bounds heap write when the victim decrypts it\nwith CMS_decrypt(), corrupting the heap and typically resulting in a Denial\nof Service.\n\nCWE: CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write\n\nDescription: The key-wrap OID is potentially attacker-controlled on the wire.\nCMS unwrapping allows both id-aesNNN-wrap-pad and id-aesNNN-wrap ciphers.\nAn attacker can take a legitimate message and change a single OID byte to\nselect the padded variant while leaving the message otherwise valid. Since\nthe unwrap key is derived from the recipient\u0026apos;s private operation (ECDH key\nagreement or ML-KEM decapsulation), the RFC 5649 integrity check cannot\npass, and the decryption fails with integrity failure.\n\nThe write is a fixed-size (8-byte), fixed-value (zero) heap overflow\nimmediately past the allocation, requires no special configuration, and is\nreachable from the public CMS_decrypt() function. The consequence is\na heap corruption leading to a Denial of Service. The fix in the CMS code\nsizes the unwrap output buffer for the worst case so a failed unwrap cannot\nwrite past the allocation.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nAs the CMS code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS\nmodules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63072)\n\nIssue summary: OpenSSL CMP response validation passed an unexpected response\nsender distinguished name directly as the format string to `ERR_raise_data()`.\n\nImpact summary: A malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint can crash a CMP client\nthat enforces an expected sender or uses a pinned server certificate whose\nsubject becomes the default expected sender.\n\nCWE: CWE-134 (Use of Externally-Controlled Format String)\n\nDescription: When validating a received CMP message, ossl_cmp_msg_check_update()\nconverts the peer-supplied sender distinguished name with X509_NAME_oneline()\nand passes it directly as the format argument to ERR_raise_data(). Percent\ncharacters survive the conversion, so a sender DN such as \u0026quot;CN=%s%n\u0026quot; reaches\nBIO_vsnprintf() as an attacker-controlled format string with no matching variadic\narguments. This path is only reached when the caller configures an expected\nsender or pins a server certificate, which is the normal configuration for a\nCMP client validating server responses.\n\nSince the attacker controls the format string but none of the variadic\narguments, such specifiers as %s and %n dereference or write through unrelated\nstack contents and crash the client. The reliable consequence is a denial of\nservice, when the response comes from a malicious or intercepted CMP endpoint.\nThere is no controlled memory write, arbitrary-address read, or reliable path\nto remote code execution.\n\nFIPS impact: no\n\nNo FIPS modules are affected by this issue, as the CMP protocol\nimplementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-63073)\n\nIssue summary: The OpenSSL Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) caches\nadditional certificates (extraCerts) sent in a CMP message, but never expunges\nthem (for instance if they are invalid). If a server reuses an OSSL_CMP_CTX\nfrequently, this cache of extraCerts may grow unboundedly, and a malicious\nclient may flood a CMP server with requests driving this growth.\n\nImpact summary: Users utilizing a CMP server that reuses a single OSSL_CMP_CTX\nfor the lifetime of a server process may observe unbounded memory growth in the\nevent a malicious client repeatedly sends requests containing unique extra\ncertificates, which may lead to OOM conditions.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: If a remote user sends CMP messages to a server with a list of\nextraCerts and the message is rejected, the extraCerts from the message remains\nin the server contexts untrusted certificate stack. This exposes servers with\nlong lived ctx objects to Denial of Service attacks in which an attacker sends\nmessages intending to be rejected with a large list of additional certificates\nrepeatedly, forcing the server to store them indefinitely.\n \nThe issue was fixed by removing the added extra certs if the message is\nrejected, using the same method as when the context is configured to not do\ncaching at all.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nAs the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS\nmodules are affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63074)\n\nIssue summary: When OpenSSL processes QUIC traffic from a peer that repeatedly\nsends ack-eliciting packets while not acknowledging ACK-only responses, the\nQUIC stack can retain ACK-only packet metadata for the lifetime of the\nconnection.\n\nImpact summary: A remote peer that can complete a QUIC handshake can\ncause connection-scoped memory growth which may lead to Denial of Service\nthrough memory exhaustion, especially with sustained traffic or many concurrent\nQUIC connections.\n\nCWE: CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling\n\nDescription: When the OpenSSL QUIC stack sends an ACK-only packet,\nthere is no requirement by the QUIC protocol that the peer will acknowledge\nthat ACK-only packet (i.e. it is itself not ack-eliciting). However, the OpenSSL\nimplementation stores the metadata about the ACK frames regardless.\nIn and of itself that\u0026apos;s ok, but if a malicious peer establishes a connection, and\nthen drives the connection such that ACK-only packets are forced from the \nOpenSSL implementation peer (i.e., by sending numerous PING frames),\nand then withholding any subsequent acks for ack-eliciting data, like\nlegitimate data, said malicious peer can force inappropriate memory growth\non the OpenSSL peer, potentially leading to a Denial of Service.\n\nThe fix is to ensure that we account for the transmission of the ACK-only\npacket in the packet histories high and low watermark without actually storing\nthe ACK-only packet metadata itself.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nThe OpenSSL FIPS module is not affected as the QUIC code is\noutside the FIPS module boundary.(CVE-2026-63075)\n\nIssue summary: OpenSSL CMP password based protection verification only\nchecks whether the protectionAlg parameter was not NULL and not its\nASN.1 type, before treating it as a PBMParameter. A crafted message can\ncontain a parameter of a different type, which is then dereferenced as an\ninvalid pointer.\n\nImpact summary: A remote, unauthenticated attacker can crash an application\nacting as a CMP server that accepts PBM-protected messages, or a CMP client\ntalking to a malicious or intercepted CMP server, resulting in a Denial of\nService.\n\nCWE: CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference\n\nDescription: When verifying the password-based MAC protection of a CMP\nmessage, OpenSSL library reads the protectionAlg algorithm parameter with\nX509_ALGOR_get0(), which returns both the parameter type and its value\npointer. The value is then cast to an ASN1_STRING and treated as the\nexpected PBMParameter after only checking that pointer is not NULL. The\nparameter type returned by X509_ALGOR_get0() was never consulted.\n\nThis happens during protection verification, before any MAC is computed, so\nno knowledge of the PBM shared secret is required; the only precondition is\nthat PBM verification is reachable. On the server side this is reached from\nOSSL_CMP_SRV_process_request() for any application that stands up a CMP\nserver accepting PBM-protected messages, and on the client side from CMP\nresponse validation against a malicious or on-path (MITM) server. The\nreliable consequence is a denial of service; there is no memory disclosure,\nno controlled memory write, and no path to code execution. CMP is a\nspecialized feature that an application must explicitly enable.\n\nFIPS impact: no\nAs the CMP code lives outside the FIPS module boundary, no FIPS modules\nare affected by this CVE.(CVE-2026-63076)\n\nA vulnerability was discovered in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. The vulnerability affects unknown processing logic of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=save_menu. Manipulation of the img parameter results in arbitrary file uploads. Attackers can launch attacks remotely. The exploit code for this vulnerability has been made public and may be exploited.(CVE-2026-75803)",
"id": "OESA-2026-3830",
"modified": "2026-09-14T16:34:47Z",
"published": "2026-09-14T16:34:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://www.openeuler.org/zh/security/security-bulletins/detail/?id=openEuler-SA-2026-3830"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-14457"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-18798"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-54874"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63072"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63073"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63074"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63075"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-63076"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75803"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.7.2",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "openssl security update",
"upstream": [
"CVE-2026-14457",
"CVE-2026-18798",
"CVE-2026-54874",
"CVE-2026-63072",
"CVE-2026-63073",
"CVE-2026-63074",
"CVE-2026-63075",
"CVE-2026-63076",
"CVE-2026-75803"
]
}
OPENSUSE-SU-2026:11623-1
Vulnerability from csaf_opensuse - Published: 2026-08-27 00:00 - Updated: 2026-09-17 17:21Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.