| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A malicious actor with access to the network could exploit a Path Traversal vulnerability found in UniFi Access Application to access files on the host device. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network,low privileges and under certain conditions could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in UniFi Network Application to escalate privileges within the UniFi Network Application. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network and low privileges could exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in UniFi Protect Application to escalate privileges on the host device. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network and under certain network configurations could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in certain devices running UniFi OS to make unauthorized changes to such UniFi OS devices. |
| A malicious actor with access to the network and low privileges could exploit an Improper Access Control vulnerability found in UniFi Talk Application to escalate privileges within the UniFi Talk Application. |
| A vulnerability was determined in omec-project amf up to 2.1.1. This issue affects the function RRCInactiveTransitionReport of the component NGAP Message Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to denial of service. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This patch is called 34bc6724acc97dba1f8691e586da95b042cb612d. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue. |
| An issue in curl’s QUIC UDP receive function allows a malicious HTTP/3 server
to trigger a remote denial of service against a curl or libcurl client.
Because the helper function discards zero-length UDP datagrams before counting
them toward the per-call packet budget, a connected QUIC peer can continuously
stream empty datagrams to indefinitely stall the client. |
| When a user invokes curl using a schemeless URL combined with
`--proto-default` sftp (or scp), a disconnect occurs between the tool layer
and libcurl. The tool layer incorrectly infers the URL scheme, which
erroneously bypasses the initialization of critical SSH security options like
CURLOPT_SSH_HOST_PUBLIC_KEY_SHA256 and CURLOPT_SSH_KNOWNHOSTS. Conversely, the
libcurl runtime successfully honors CURLOPT_DEFAULT_PROTOCOL and establishes
the connection via SFTP/SCP as specified. Because the tool layer skipped the
security configuration, these SSH host verification options are silently
omitted, causing curl to connect to an unverified SSH remote host without
throwing an error. |
| libcurl might in some circumstances reuse the wrong connection when asked to
do Negotiate-authenticated ones, even when they are set to use different
'services'.
libcurl features a pool of recent connections so that subsequent requests can
reuse an existing connection to avoid overhead.
When reusing a connection a range of criteria must be met. Due to a logical
error in the code, a request that was issued by an application could
wrongfully reuse an existing connection to the same server that was
authenticated using different services. |
| When reusing a libcurl handle for sequential transfers driven by
environment-variable proxy configuration, libcurl fails to clear the proxy
authentication state between requests. Specifically, if the initial transfer
authenticates against `proxyA` using Digest auth, a subsequent transfer routed
through `proxyB` erroneously leaks the `Proxy-Authorization:` header intended
solely for `proxyA`. |
| A vulnerability in libcurl caused the HTTP `Referer:` header to persist even
when explicitly cleared. While the documentation states that passing NULL to
`CURLOPT_REFERER` suppresses the header, the option failed to clear the
internal state. As a result the previous referrer string was erroneously
reused and sent in subsequent requests, potentially leaking sensitive
information to unintended servers. |
| When a libcurl-based application performs transfers via `SCP://` or `SFTP://`
and utilizes the `CURLOPT_SSH_KEYFUNCTION` callback, it may silently accept an
untrusted server. This vulnerability occurs when a server presents a host key
type that does not match the specific key type already recorded for that host
in the `known_hosts` file. Instead of rejecting the mismatch, the callback
mechanism fails to properly enforce the restriction, allowing the connection
to succeed without warning and risking a potential man-in-the-middle attack. |
| Dell Client Platform BIOS contains an Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with physical access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Information Disclosure. |
| In affected versions of Eclipse Theia (1.8.1 and later), the browser backend exposes privileged terminal RPC over WebSocket (/services/shell-terminal, /services/terminals/:id) without service-level authentication.
WebSocket origin validation in @theia/core is fail-open: connections are accepted when the Origin header is missing or when no THEIA_HOSTS allowlist is configured (the default). The Socket.IO integration additionally replaces the real Origin header with a client-supplied fix-origin header that an attacker can control or omit.
As a result, a foreign-origin web page visited by a user with a running Theia instance can open the /services WebSocket namespace, invoke terminal creation, attach to the resulting terminal data channel, execute arbitrary OS commands, and read their output. This affects both local developer setups (drive-by attack) and hosted or tunneled deployments without strong external authentication.
A fix is in development that enforces same-origin validation by default, removes trust in the fix-origin header, gates HTTP and WebSocket access on a SameSite=Strict; HttpOnly connection-token cookie, and sanitizes shell terminal creation options. |
| Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.6, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an improper access control vulnerability in the RBAC. A low privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information tampering. |
| Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an use of uninitialized resource vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information exposure. |
| Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an improper link resolution before file access ('Link following') vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information exposure. |
| Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an insertion of sensitive information into log file vulnerability. A low privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information exposure. |
| Dell PowerProtect Data Domain, versions 7.7.1.0 through 8.7, LTS2026 release version 8.6.1.0 through 8.6.1.10, LTS2025 release version 8.3.1.0 through 8.3.1.30, LTS2024 release versions 7.13.1.0 through 7.13.1.70 contain an improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command ('OS command Injection') vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to command execution. |
| A flaw was found in the ClientResource component of Keycloak's admin services when Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP) v2 is enabled. This issue allows a delegated administrator, who should only have limited control over specific clients, to attach or remove hidden client scopes that they are not authorized to see or manage. As a result, an attacker could inject unauthorized data or permissions into the security tokens issued to end-users, potentially tricking other applications into granting higher levels of access than intended. |
