🚨 CVE-2026-42909
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-42985
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-42992
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-42993
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-44799
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Heap-based buffer overflow in Remote Desktop Client allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-45445
Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the
public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied
initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded.
Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the
same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller,
resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the
same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag
depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or
ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a
single captured message.
OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming
interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level
one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends
against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and
EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes
the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing
data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an
AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset
state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV.
If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the
authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and
clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the
plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and
verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV)
pair.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a
TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case.
Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD
API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only
applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher()
one-shot API are vulnerable.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by
this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the
public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied
initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded.
Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the
same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller,
resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the
same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag
depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or
ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a
single captured message.
OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming
interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level
one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends
against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and
EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes
the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing
data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an
AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset
state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV.
If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the
authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and
clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the
plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and
verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV)
pair.
The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a
TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case.
Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD
API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only
applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher()
one-shot API are vulnerable.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by
this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Apply the buffered IV on the AES-OCB EVP_Cipher() path · openssl/openssl@323f0b6
aes_ocb_cipher(), the OCB provider's OSSL_FUNC_CIPHER_CIPHER slot,
processed input without flushing the buffered IV into the OCB
context. Effective nonce was 0 regardless of the caller&...
processed input without flushing the buffered IV into the OCB
context. Effective nonce was 0 regardless of the caller&...
🚨 CVE-2026-45446
Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV
(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.
Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
to the victim's application using these ciphers.
AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD
modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated
but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte
tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only
if the tag is verified succesfully.
In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is
computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.
If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without
invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received
ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its
all-zeros value.
When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty
ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not
know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's
necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without
resetting the key.
AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since
OpenSSL 3.2.
No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support
either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must
implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the
ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV
(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.
Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
to the victim's application using these ciphers.
AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD
modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated
but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte
tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only
if the tag is verified succesfully.
In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is
computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.
If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without
invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received
ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its
all-zeros value.
When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty
ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not
know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's
necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without
resetting the key.
AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since
OpenSSL 3.2.
No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support
either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must
implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the
ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Fix handling of empty-ciphertext messages in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-SIV · openssl/openssl@25b32cd
AES-GCM-SIV: EVP_DecryptFinal_ex Accepts All-Zero Tag for Empty-Ciphertext
Messages.
AES-SIV: EVP_DecryptUpdate_ex Accepts All-Zero Tag for Empty-Ciphertext
Messages on context reuse.
Fixes CVE-2...
Messages.
AES-SIV: EVP_DecryptUpdate_ex Accepts All-Zero Tag for Empty-Ciphertext
Messages on context reuse.
Fixes CVE-2...
🚨 CVE-2026-45447
Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could
trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification.
Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap
corruption, or potentially remote code execution.
When processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData
digestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may
incorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent
use of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free
condition.
In the common case this occurs when the application later calls
BIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending
on allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this
may result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application
contexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution.
Applications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL
PKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this
processing are not affected.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could
trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification.
Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap
corruption, or potentially remote code execution.
When processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData
digestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may
incorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent
use of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free
condition.
In the common case this occurs when the application later calls
BIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending
on allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this
may result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application
contexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution.
Applications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL
PKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this
processing are not affected.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Fix possible use-after-free in OpenSSL PKCS7_verify() · openssl/openssl@3aad5eb
Fixes CVE-2026-45447
Reviewed-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.foundation>
MergeDate: Mon Jun 8 20:22:50 2026
(cherry...
Reviewed-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.foundation>
MergeDate: Mon Jun 8 20:22:50 2026
(cherry...
🚨 CVE-2026-45501
Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-45502
Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-45503
Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an authorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-45504
Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Server-side request forgery (ssrf) in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-47631
Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-7383
Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination
buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap
buffer overflow.
Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly
attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.
In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination
size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift
of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and
UNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts
for UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches
around 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30
characters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and
the subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the
one-byte allocation.
X.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),
whose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID
size limits cap the input length; no network protocol or
certificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.
Triggering the bug requires an application that calls
ASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers
a custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with
attacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.
For these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by
this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module
boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination
buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap
buffer overflow.
Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly
attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour.
In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination
size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift
of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and
UNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts
for UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches
around 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30
characters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and
the subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the
one-byte allocation.
X.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(),
whose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID
size limits cap the input length; no network protocol or
certificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow.
Triggering the bug requires an application that calls
ASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers
a custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with
attacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more.
For these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by
this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module
boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Reject oversized inputs in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() · openssl/openssl@4f8d2bd
In ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination size for BMPSTRING and
UNIVERSALSTRING output was computed by a signed left shift on an
int:
outlen = nchar << 1; /* MBSTRING_BMP ...
UNIVERSALSTRING output was computed by a signed left shift on an
int:
outlen = nchar << 1; /* MBSTRING_BMP ...
🚨 CVE-2026-9076
Issue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)
processes attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK
cipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().
Impact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to
Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory
page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information
disclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.
The key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the
RFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped
key length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the
block length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from
an OID carried in the attacker's PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no
requirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects
a stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer
containing the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes
specified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.
Applications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()
(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS
data are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the
over-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication
succeeds.
The over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so
there is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the
allocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal
allocator.
The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: When CMS password-based decryption (RFC 3211 / PWRI key unwrap)
processes attacker-supplied CMS data, an attacker-chosen stream-mode KEK
cipher can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read in kek_unwrap_key().
Impact summary: A heap buffer over-read may trigger a crash which leads to
Denial of Service for an application if the input buffer ends at a memory
page boundary and the following page is unmapped. There is no information
disclosure as the over-read bytes are not revealed to the attacker.
The key unwrapping function performs a check-byte test as specified in the
RFC that reads 7 bytes from a heap allocation that is based on the wrapped
key length from the message. There is a minimum length check based on the
block length of the wrapping cipher. However the cipher is selected from
an OID carried in the attacker's PWRI keyEncryptionAlgorithm with no
requirement that the cipher be a block cipher. When an attacker selects
a stream-mode cipher the guard will be ineffective and the allocated buffer
containing the unwrapped key can be too small to fit the check-bytes
specified in the RFC and a buffer over-read can happen.
Applications calling CMS_decrypt() or CMS_decrypt_set1_password()
(equivalently openssl cms -decrypt -pwri_password ...) on untrusted CMS
data are vulnerable to this issue. No password knowledge is required: the
over-read happens during the unwrap attempt before any authentication
succeeds.
The over-read is limited to a few bytes and is not written to output, so
there is no information disclosure. Triggering a crash requires the
allocation to border unmapped memory, which is unlikely with the normal
allocator.
The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
cms: kek_unwrap_key: Fix out-of-bounds read in check-byte validation · openssl/openssl@05b0663
the check-byte test in kek_unwrap_key() reads tmp[1] through tmp[6]
unconditionally, so the decrypted buffer must hold at least seven
octets. The pre-decryption size check enforces inlen >= ...
unconditionally, so the decrypted buffer must hold at least seven
octets. The pre-decryption size check enforces inlen >= ...
🚨 CVE-2026-50512
Improper link resolution before file access ('link following') in Microsoft PC Manager allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper link resolution before file access ('link following') in Microsoft PC Manager allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2025-62850
A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3459 build 20260409 and later
🎖@cveNotify
A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3459 build 20260409 and later
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2025-66273
A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2025-66279
A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
A command injection vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2025-66280
An integer overflow or wraparound vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to compromise the security of the system.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
An integer overflow or wraparound vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to compromise the security of the system.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2025-66281
A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. The remote attackers can then exploit the vulnerability to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify
A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. The remote attackers can then exploit the vulnerability to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions:
QTS 5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.2.9.3410 build 20260214 and later
QuTS hero h5.3.4.3500 build 20260520 and later
QuTS hero h6.0.0.3397 build 20260206 and later
🎖@cveNotify