🚨 CVE-2026-9086
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A remote attacker with administrative privileges, specifically those with `manage-client` permission or access to client registration endpoints, could bypass client Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) validation. This is achieved by registering a malicious client with a specially crafted redirect URI using a case-insensitive `javascript:` or `data:` scheme. This Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows for arbitrary code execution in the Keycloak origin when a victim clicks the crafted link, such as in the logout flow or the Admin Console.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A remote attacker with administrative privileges, specifically those with `manage-client` permission or access to client registration endpoints, could bypass client Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) validation. This is achieved by registering a malicious client with a specially crafted redirect URI using a case-insensitive `javascript:` or `data:` scheme. This Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows for arbitrary code execution in the Keycloak origin when a victim clicks the crafted link, such as in the logout flow or the Admin Console.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9099
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A missing authorization check in the GroupResource.addChild() endpoint within the Admin REST API allows an authenticated user with limited administrative privileges to reparent any existing group. When Fine-Grained Admin Permissions v2 (FGAPv2) is enabled, an attacker with management rights over a single low-privilege group can reparent a highly privileged group (such as one possessing the realm-admin role) under their managed group.
Because group permissions follow a hierarchical structure, this action unauthorizedly grants the attacker management and password-reset capabilities over the members of the targeted privileged group. An attacker can exploit this to reset an administrator's password, compromise the account, and achieve a full realm takeover, leading to a complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A missing authorization check in the GroupResource.addChild() endpoint within the Admin REST API allows an authenticated user with limited administrative privileges to reparent any existing group. When Fine-Grained Admin Permissions v2 (FGAPv2) is enabled, an attacker with management rights over a single low-privilege group can reparent a highly privileged group (such as one possessing the realm-admin role) under their managed group.
Because group permissions follow a hierarchical structure, this action unauthorizedly grants the attacker management and password-reset capabilities over the members of the targeted privileged group. An attacker can exploit this to reset an administrator's password, compromise the account, and achieve a full realm takeover, leading to a complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9705
A flaw was found in Keycloak's client registration service. A remote attacker, possessing a previously issued Registration Access Token (RAT), could exploit this vulnerability to re-enable a client that an administrator had explicitly disabled. This bypasses security controls, allowing the attacker to reset the client's secret and potentially regain privileged API access. The primary impact includes unauthorized information disclosure and potential integrity compromise.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak's client registration service. A remote attacker, possessing a previously issued Registration Access Token (RAT), could exploit this vulnerability to re-enable a client that an administrator had explicitly disabled. This bypasses security controls, allowing the attacker to reset the client's secret and potentially regain privileged API access. The primary impact includes unauthorized information disclosure and potential integrity compromise.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9799
A flaw was found in org.keycloak.authorization. An authenticated user with a granted User-Managed Access (UMA) permission ticket for one resource can exploit this by using a specific permission request prefix to bypass per-resource access control. This allows the user to gain unauthorized access to all resources of that type within the same resource server, even if they do not have a ticket for those specific resources. This vulnerability requires the resource server to be configured in PERMISSIVE policy enforcement mode and affects typed resources with ownerManagedAccess enabled, where no explicit policy protects the resource type. The primary consequence is unauthorized information disclosure or modification of resources.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in org.keycloak.authorization. An authenticated user with a granted User-Managed Access (UMA) permission ticket for one resource can exploit this by using a specific permission request prefix to bypass per-resource access control. This allows the user to gain unauthorized access to all resources of that type within the same resource server, even if they do not have a ticket for those specific resources. This vulnerability requires the resource server to be configured in PERMISSIVE policy enforcement mode and affects typed resources with ownerManagedAccess enabled, where no explicit policy protects the resource type. The primary consequence is unauthorized information disclosure or modification of resources.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9800
A flaw was found in Keycloak Policy Enforcer. This vulnerability allows any authenticated user to bypass all authorization policies, including role, scope, and User-Managed Access (UMA) permission checks. By including the configured access-denied page path within a request URL, either as a path segment or a query parameter, an attacker can gain unauthorized access to protected resources.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak Policy Enforcer. This vulnerability allows any authenticated user to bypass all authorization policies, including role, scope, and User-Managed Access (UMA) permission checks. By including the configured access-denied page path within a request URL, either as a path segment or a query parameter, an attacker can gain unauthorized access to protected resources.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-2053
The WSO2 API Manager's message flow component, when processing WS-Addressing headers, does not sufficiently validate or restrict user-controlled input within these headers. This omission allows an attacker to manipulate WS-Addressing headers to specify arbitrary destinations for server-initiated requests.
Successful exploitation allows an unauthenticated attacker to control the destination of server-initiated requests originating from the WSO2 API Manager. This direct control can enable unauthorized access to internal network resources or services that would typically be inaccessible from external networks.
🎖@cveNotify
The WSO2 API Manager's message flow component, when processing WS-Addressing headers, does not sufficiently validate or restrict user-controlled input within these headers. This omission allows an attacker to manipulate WS-Addressing headers to specify arbitrary destinations for server-initiated requests.
Successful exploitation allows an unauthenticated attacker to control the destination of server-initiated requests originating from the WSO2 API Manager. This direct control can enable unauthorized access to internal network resources or services that would typically be inaccessible from external networks.
🎖@cveNotify
Wso2
Security Advisory WSO2-2026-5072/CVE-2026-2053
Documentation for WSO2 Security and Compliance
🚨 CVE-2026-49486
The Apache Airflow FTP provider's `FTPSHook.get_conn()` created an `ftplib.FTP_TLS` connection but never called `prot_p()`, so although the control channel was TLS-protected the data channel was transmitted in cleartext. Any deployment using `FTPSHook` or `FTPSFileTransmitOperator` to move files over FTPS exposed file contents and credentials-in-transit to a network attacker able to observe the data connection. Upgrade apache-airflow-providers-ftp to `3.15.1` or later, which issues `PROT P` to encrypt the data channel.
🎖@cveNotify
The Apache Airflow FTP provider's `FTPSHook.get_conn()` created an `ftplib.FTP_TLS` connection but never called `prot_p()`, so although the control channel was TLS-protected the data channel was transmitted in cleartext. Any deployment using `FTPSHook` or `FTPSFileTransmitOperator` to move files over FTPS exposed file contents and credentials-in-transit to a network attacker able to observe the data connection. Upgrade apache-airflow-providers-ftp to `3.15.1` or later, which issues `PROT P` to encrypt the data channel.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Call prot_p() in FTPSHook so the FTPS data channel is protected by shubhamraj-git · Pull Request #67946 · apache/airflow
Some FTPS servers are configured to require a protected data channel and reject any data transfer that is not preceded by "PROT P". Against such a server, the current FTPSHook / F...
🚨 CVE-2026-57872
An unauthenticated
directory traversal vulnerability exists in get_fcont.cgi in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient validation of user-supplied file path input before the requested
file is accessed by the CGI component. A remote attacker may exploit this
vulnerability by sending a crafted request to read arbitrary files accessible
to the affected process, resulting in information disclosure.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
directory traversal vulnerability exists in get_fcont.cgi in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient validation of user-supplied file path input before the requested
file is accessed by the CGI component. A remote attacker may exploit this
vulnerability by sending a crafted request to read arbitrary files accessible
to the affected process, resulting in information disclosure.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57873
An unauthenticated
NULL pointer dereference vulnerability exists in IEEE8021x_upload.cgi in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
improper validation of multipart upload headers when processing
certificate-related upload fields. A remote attacker may exploit this
vulnerability by sending a malformed multipart request, causing the affected
CGI process to crash and resulting in a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
NULL pointer dereference vulnerability exists in IEEE8021x_upload.cgi in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
improper validation of multipart upload headers when processing
certificate-related upload fields. A remote attacker may exploit this
vulnerability by sending a malformed multipart request, causing the affected
CGI process to crash and resulting in a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57874
An unauthenticated
buffer overflow vulnerability exists in IEEE8021x_upload.cgi in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when parsing filename values in multipart upload
data. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted
upload request with overly long input, causing memory corruption and resulting
in a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
buffer overflow vulnerability exists in IEEE8021x_upload.cgi in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when parsing filename values in multipart upload
data. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted
upload request with overly long input, causing memory corruption and resulting
in a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57876
An unauthenticated
out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in onvif.cgi in GeoVision GV-LPC2011
and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by insufficient
bounds checking when processing HTTP request body data. A remote attacker may
exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted request with excessive input,
causing memory corruption and resulting in a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in onvif.cgi in GeoVision GV-LPC2011
and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by insufficient
bounds checking when processing HTTP request body data. A remote attacker may
exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted request with excessive input,
causing memory corruption and resulting in a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57877
An unauthenticated
format string vulnerability exists in vlsvr in GeoVision GV-LPC2011 and
GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by improper handling
of externally controlled input during log message formatting in the login
processing path. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending
crafted login data, potentially causing information disclosure, memory
corruption, or a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
format string vulnerability exists in vlsvr in GeoVision GV-LPC2011 and
GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by improper handling
of externally controlled input during log message formatting in the login
processing path. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending
crafted login data, potentially causing information disclosure, memory
corruption, or a denial of service.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57878
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in thttpd in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when processing web request parameters in a
specific request path. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by
sending a crafted HTTP request with overly long input, resulting in memory
corruption, denial of service, or potentially arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in thttpd in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when processing web request parameters in a
specific request path. A remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by
sending a crafted HTTP request with overly long input, resulting in memory
corruption, denial of service, or potentially arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57879
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ssvr in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when processing RTSP custom authentication data. A
remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted RTSP
request, resulting in memory corruption, denial of service, or potentially
arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ssvr in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when processing RTSP custom authentication data. A
remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted RTSP
request, resulting in memory corruption, denial of service, or potentially
arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57880
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ssvr in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when parsing RTSP Digest authentication fields. A
remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted RTSP
request containing overly long authentication data, resulting in memory
corruption, denial of service, or potentially arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in ssvr in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient bounds checking when parsing RTSP Digest authentication fields. A
remote attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted RTSP
request containing overly long authentication data, resulting in memory
corruption, denial of service, or potentially arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-57881
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in vlsvr in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient length validation when processing remote login data. A remote
attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted login data with
overly long input, resulting in memory corruption, denial of service, or potentially
arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
An unauthenticated
stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in vlsvr in GeoVision
GV-LPC2011 and GV-LPC2211 V1.12 and earlier. The vulnerability is caused by
insufficient length validation when processing remote login data. A remote
attacker may exploit this vulnerability by sending crafted login data with
overly long input, resulting in memory corruption, denial of service, or potentially
arbitrary code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
GeoVision
Cyber Security - GeoVision
- GeoVision specializes in advanced video surveillance solutions, offering state-of-the-art IP cameras, cloud-based surveillance platforms, and tailored surveillance software designed for business buildings, factories, and retail environments. Enhance public…
🚨 CVE-2026-44279
An improper export of android application components vulnerability in Fortinet FortiTokenAndroid 6.2 all versions, FortiTokenAndroid 6.1 all versions, FortiTokenAndroid 5.2 all versions may allow attacker to disclose information via an exported Content Provider URI.
🎖@cveNotify
An improper export of android application components vulnerability in Fortinet FortiTokenAndroid 6.2 all versions, FortiTokenAndroid 6.1 all versions, FortiTokenAndroid 5.2 all versions may allow attacker to disclose information via an exported Content Provider URI.
🎖@cveNotify
FortiGuard Labs
PSIRT | FortiGuard Labs
None
🚨 CVE-2026-11625
Bytes::Random::Secure versions through 0.29 for Perl share internal state across forked processes.
When an object is initialised before forking, or when the functional interface is used, then the internal state for the PRNG is shared across processes and identical random streams will be produced.
Secrets generated in multiprocess applications are predictable across processes.
🎖@cveNotify
Bytes::Random::Secure versions through 0.29 for Perl share internal state across forked processes.
When an object is initialised before forking, or when the functional interface is used, then the internal state for the PRNG is shared across processes and identical random streams will be produced.
Secrets generated in multiprocess applications are predictable across processes.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
The internal PRNG state is not updated on forking · Issue #3 · daoswald/Bytes-Random-Secure
The internal PRNG state is shared when using the functional interface, or when creating an object before forking. The result is that different processes will emit the same random streams. Depending...
🚨 CVE-2026-11702
Bytes::Random::Secure::Tiny versions through 1.011 for Perl share internal state across forked processes.
When an object is initialised before forking, then the internal state for the PRNG is shared across processes and identical random streams will be produced.
Secrets generated in multiprocess applications are predictable across processes.
🎖@cveNotify
Bytes::Random::Secure::Tiny versions through 1.011 for Perl share internal state across forked processes.
When an object is initialised before forking, then the internal state for the PRNG is shared across processes and identical random streams will be produced.
Secrets generated in multiprocess applications are predictable across processes.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
The internal PRNG state is not updated on forking · Issue #6 · daoswald/Bytes-Random-Secure-Tiny
The internal PRNG state is shared when creating an object before forking. The result is that different processes will emit the same random streams. Depending on the application, this could allow at...
🚨 CVE-2026-1869
The User Registration & Membership – Free & Paid Memberships, Subscriptions, Content Restriction, User Profile, Custom User Registration & Login Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to missing validation checks in the confirm_payment() function in all versions up to, and including, 5.2.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass payment processing and activate paid memberships.
🎖@cveNotify
The User Registration & Membership – Free & Paid Memberships, Subscriptions, Content Restriction, User Profile, Custom User Registration & Login Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to missing validation checks in the confirm_payment() function in all versions up to, and including, 5.2.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass payment processing and activate paid memberships.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-40547
A remote code execution vulnerability was found in Shim. The Shim boot support trusts attacker-controlled values when parsing an HTTP response. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a specific malicious HTTP request, leading to a completely controlled out-of-bounds write primitive and complete system compromise. This flaw is only exploitable during the early boot phase, an attacker needs to perform a Man-in-the-Middle or compromise the boot server to be able to exploit this vulnerability successfully.
🎖@cveNotify
A remote code execution vulnerability was found in Shim. The Shim boot support trusts attacker-controlled values when parsing an HTTP response. This flaw allows an attacker to craft a specific malicious HTTP request, leading to a completely controlled out-of-bounds write primitive and complete system compromise. This flaw is only exploitable during the early boot phase, an attacker needs to perform a Man-in-the-Middle or compromise the boot server to be able to exploit this vulnerability successfully.
🎖@cveNotify