🚨 CVE-2026-7666
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.core.mail.backends.smtp.EmailBackend` in Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake when `fail_silently=True`, which allows on-path network attackers to read email content via cleartext interception.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Kasper Dupont for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 6.0 before 6.0.6 and 5.2 before 5.2.15.
`django.core.mail.backends.smtp.EmailBackend` in Django fails to prevent reuse of a partially-initialized connection after a failed `STARTTLS` handshake when `fail_silently=True`, which allows on-path network attackers to read email content via cleartext interception.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Kasper Dupont for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2026-8404
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not match `Cache-Control` response directives case-insensitively, which allows remote attackers to read responses that were incorrectly cached because their `Cache-Control` directives used uppercase or mixed-case values.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Ahmed Badawe for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An issue was discovered in Django 5.2 before 5.2.15 and 6.0 before 6.0.6.
`django.middleware.cache.UpdateCacheMiddleware` in Django does not match `Cache-Control` response directives case-insensitively, which allows remote attackers to read responses that were incorrectly cached because their `Cache-Control` directives used uppercase or mixed-case values.
Earlier, unsupported Django series (such as 5.0.x, 4.1.x, and 3.2.x) were not evaluated and may also be affected.
Django would like to thank Ahmed Badawe for reporting this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Django Project
Archive of security issues | Django documentation
The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
🚨 CVE-2022-31114
backpack/crud provides Create, Read, Update & Delete (CRUD) functions for Backpack, a collection of Laravel packages that help users build custom administration panels. Versions prior to 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. An attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to trick users or admins into clicking a malicious link, which under very specific circumstances could give them information or possibly admin access. Versions 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 patch the issue. As a workaround, manually look inside error views in `resources/views/errors` and output `e($exception->getMessage())` instead of `$exception->getMessage()`.
🎖@cveNotify
backpack/crud provides Create, Read, Update & Delete (CRUD) functions for Backpack, a collection of Laravel packages that help users build custom administration panels. Versions prior to 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 are vulnerable to cross-site scripting. An attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to trick users or admins into clicking a malicious link, which under very specific circumstances could give them information or possibly admin access. Versions 5.0.13, 4.1.69, and 4.0.63 patch the issue. As a workaround, manually look inside error views in `resources/views/errors` and output `e($exception->getMessage())` instead of `$exception->getMessage()`.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') in backpack/crud
### Impact
It’s a “*moderate*” vulnerability… but being an admin panel, we take this seriously. It’s difficult… but an attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to **trick yo...
It’s a “*moderate*” vulnerability… but being an admin panel, we take this seriously. It’s difficult… but an attacker could conduct a targeted phishing campaign, in order to **trick yo...
🚨 CVE-2026-6657
A vulnerability in jupyter-server versions 1.12.0 through 2.17.0 allows an attacker to bypass CORS origin validation when the `allow_origin_pat` configuration is used. The issue arises from the use of `re.match()` for validating the `Origin` header, which only anchors at the start of the string. This allows attacker-controlled domains such as `trusted.example.com.evil.com` to pass validation against patterns intended to match `trusted.example.com`. The vulnerability affects multiple locations in the codebase, including CORS headers, WebSocket connections, referer validation, and login redirects, potentially enabling phishing attacks, arbitrary code execution, and unauthorized access to sensitive API responses.
🎖@cveNotify
A vulnerability in jupyter-server versions 1.12.0 through 2.17.0 allows an attacker to bypass CORS origin validation when the `allow_origin_pat` configuration is used. The issue arises from the use of `re.match()` for validating the `Origin` header, which only anchors at the start of the string. This allows attacker-controlled domains such as `trusted.example.com.evil.com` to pass validation against patterns intended to match `trusted.example.com`. The vulnerability affects multiple locations in the codebase, including CORS headers, WebSocket connections, referer validation, and login redirects, potentially enabling phishing attacks, arbitrary code execution, and unauthorized access to sensitive API responses.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-40290
OP-TEE is a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) designed as companion to a non-secure Linux kernel running on Arm; Cortex-A cores using the TrustZone technology. Starting in version 3.16.0 and prior to 4.11.0, a user-after-free (UAF) race condition exists in the shared memory teardown logic of FF-A within OP-TEE SPMC/SP flows. This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`. The function `sp_mem_remove()`, responsible for freeing entries in `smem->receivers` and `smem->regions`, fails to acquire the global `sp_mem_lock` before performing the `free()` operations. Concurrently, other code paths, such as `sp_mem_get_receiver()`, iterate over these same lists without holding a lock, or, like `sp_mem_is_shared()`, iterate while holding the lock but are not serialized against the unprotected `free()` in `sp_mem_remove()`. This creates a cross-thread race where a thread iterating the list can acquire a pointer to an entry (e.g., `struct sp_mem_map_region` or `struct sp_mem_receiver`), and then another thread calls `sp_mem_remove()`, freeing the object. When the first thread resumes and dereferences the pointer, it results in a Use-After-Free vulnerability. Version 4.11.0 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
OP-TEE is a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) designed as companion to a non-secure Linux kernel running on Arm; Cortex-A cores using the TrustZone technology. Starting in version 3.16.0 and prior to 4.11.0, a user-after-free (UAF) race condition exists in the shared memory teardown logic of FF-A within OP-TEE SPMC/SP flows. This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`. The function `sp_mem_remove()`, responsible for freeing entries in `smem->receivers` and `smem->regions`, fails to acquire the global `sp_mem_lock` before performing the `free()` operations. Concurrently, other code paths, such as `sp_mem_get_receiver()`, iterate over these same lists without holding a lock, or, like `sp_mem_is_shared()`, iterate while holding the lock but are not serialized against the unprotected `free()` in `sp_mem_remove()`. This creates a cross-thread race where a thread iterating the list can acquire a pointer to an entry (e.g., `struct sp_mem_map_region` or `struct sp_mem_receiver`), and then another thread calls `sp_mem_remove()`, freeing the object. When the first thread resumes and dereferences the pointer, it results in a Use-After-Free vulnerability. Version 4.11.0 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Use-After-Free race in FF-A shared-memory teardown
# User-after-free race in FF-A shared-memory teardown
## Summary
This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`.
A critical us...
## Summary
This only applies when OP-TEE is configured as an SPMC for S-EL0 SPs, that is, with `CFG_SECURE_PARTITION=y`.
A critical us...
🚨 CVE-2026-50131
Fedify is a TypeScript library for building federated server apps powered by ActivityPub. Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the IPv4 validation logic present starting in version 0.11.2 and prior to versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 appears incomplete. The `validatePublicUrl()` protection relies on `isValidPublicIPv4Address()` to reject non-public IPv4 destinations. The function blocks common private and local ranges such as `10.0.0.0/8`, `127.0.0.0/8`, `169.254.0.0/16`, `172.16.0.0/12`, and `192.168.0.0/16`, but it still treats several special-use, reserved, multicast, benchmarking, and carrier-grade NAT IPv4 ranges as valid public destinations. Because this validation is used as an SSRF defense before outbound fetches, this appears to be an incomplete mitigation or bypass class for the previous SSRF issue. Versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 contain an updated patch.
🎖@cveNotify
Fedify is a TypeScript library for building federated server apps powered by ActivityPub. Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the IPv4 validation logic present starting in version 0.11.2 and prior to versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 appears incomplete. The `validatePublicUrl()` protection relies on `isValidPublicIPv4Address()` to reject non-public IPv4 destinations. The function blocks common private and local ranges such as `10.0.0.0/8`, `127.0.0.0/8`, `169.254.0.0/16`, `172.16.0.0/12`, and `192.168.0.0/16`, but it still treats several special-use, reserved, multicast, benchmarking, and carrier-grade NAT IPv4 ranges as valid public destinations. Because this validation is used as an SSRF defense before outbound fetches, this appears to be an incomplete mitigation or bypass class for the previous SSRF issue. Versions 1.9.12, 1.10.11, 2.0.19, 2.1.15, and 2.2.4 contain an updated patch.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Incomplete SSRF mitigation after GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx: validatePublicUrl allows special-use IPv4 ranges
### Summary
Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the current IPv4 ...
Fedify previously addressed SSRF/internal network access in GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx by adding public URL validation before runtime document and media fetching. However, the current IPv4 ...
🚨 CVE-2026-42563
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, Dulwich's `ProcessMergeDriver` substitutes the file path (from the git tree, controllable by an attacker via a malicious branch) into the merge driver command via the `%P` placeholder and executes it with `subprocess.run(..., shell=True)`. An attacker who can cause a victim to merge an untrusted branch can achieve arbitrary command execution by crafting malicious file paths. Version 1.2.5 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, Dulwich's `ProcessMergeDriver` substitutes the file path (from the git tree, controllable by an attacker via a malicious branch) into the merge driver command via the `%P` placeholder and executes it with `subprocess.run(..., shell=True)`. An attacker who can cause a victim to merge an untrusted branch can achieve arbitrary command execution by crafting malicious file paths. Version 1.2.5 fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
merge_drivers: shell-quote placeholder values (CVE-2026-42563) · jelmer/dulwich@e3331b3
%P expands to the merging file's path, which comes from the git tree
and is attacker-controllable via a malicious branch. Previously it
was interpolated unquoted into a shell=True command.
...
and is attacker-controllable via a malicious branch. Previously it
was interpolated unquoted into a shell=True command.
...
🚨 CVE-2026-42568
Yamcs is a mission control framework. Prior to versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7, an LDAP injection vulnerability exists in `org.yamcs.security.LdapAuthModule` when constructing search filters. The username parameter is inserted directly into the LDAP filter without proper RFC 4515 escaping. Versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7 patch the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Yamcs is a mission control framework. Prior to versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7, an LDAP injection vulnerability exists in `org.yamcs.security.LdapAuthModule` when constructing search filters. The username parameter is inserted directly into the LDAP filter without proper RFC 4515 escaping. Versions 5.13.0 and 5.12.7 patch the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Release Yamcs 5.12.7 · yamcs/yamcs
security updates
🚨 CVE-2026-47712
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.
🎖@cveNotify
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.24.0 and prior to version 1.2.5, dulwich.porcelain.format_patch(outdir=...) derives each patch filename from the commit's subject line. Prior to this fix, get_summary only replaced spaces with dashes - path separators (/, \), parent-directory components (..), and other filename-hostile characters (e.g. :) were preserved verbatim and passed straight into os.path.join(outdir, f"{i:04d}-{summary}.patch"). A malicious commit subject could therefore direct the generated patch file outside the requested outdir. This is fixed in Dulwich 1.2.5. Users should upgrade to 1.2.5 or later. dulwich.patch.get_summary now mirrors git's format_sanitized_subject: only `[A-Za-z0-9._]` are kept, runs of other characters collapse to a single -, consecutive . collapse to a single ., trailing ./- are stripped, and the result is length-limited. This makes the returned string safe to embed as a filename component, so format_patch can no longer be steered out of outdir via the commit subject. Until upgrading, callers that pass untrusted commits to porcelain.format_patch can use stdout=True and write the patch to a destination they control, rather than letting format_patch choose the filename; validate the chosen path before opening - e.g. compare os.path.realpath(returned_path) against os.path.realpath(outdir) and reject any patch whose resolved path is not inside outdir; and/or pre-screen commits and refuse to format any whose subject's first line contains /, \, .., or other characters that are not safe on the target filesystem.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
patch: Sanitize commit subject in get_summary to prevent format_patch… · jelmer/dulwich@c2446e5
… escapes
A malicious commit subject (e.g. ``x/../../x`` or ``x\..\..\x``) could
direct ``porcelain.format_patch`` to write its patch outside the
requested ``outdir`` because ``get_summary`` only ...
A malicious commit subject (e.g. ``x/../../x`` or ``x\..\..\x``) could
direct ``porcelain.format_patch`` to write its patch outside the
requested ``outdir`` because ``get_summary`` only ...
🚨 CVE-2026-52726
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.23.2 and prior to version 1.2.5, `dulwich.porcelain.submodule_update`, and by extension `porcelain.clone(..., recurse_submodules=True)`, materializes attacker-controlled submodule paths from a crafted upstream repository without path validation. A malicious `.gitmodules` plus a matching tree gitlink whose `path` is `.git/hooks` (or any other directory inside the parent repository's `.git` directory) causes the attacker's submodule tree contents to be written directly into the victim's `.git/hooks/` directory, preserving executable mode bits. The dropped executables are then run by any subsequent `git` or `dulwich` command that invokes the matching hook, resulting in arbitrary code execution. This is the dulwich equivalent of the upstream Git fixes for CVE-2024-32002 / CVE-2024-32004, which were never propagated into dulwich's separately implemented submodule porcelain. Version 1.2.5 patches the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. Starting in version 0.23.2 and prior to version 1.2.5, `dulwich.porcelain.submodule_update`, and by extension `porcelain.clone(..., recurse_submodules=True)`, materializes attacker-controlled submodule paths from a crafted upstream repository without path validation. A malicious `.gitmodules` plus a matching tree gitlink whose `path` is `.git/hooks` (or any other directory inside the parent repository's `.git` directory) causes the attacker's submodule tree contents to be written directly into the victim's `.git/hooks/` directory, preserving executable mode bits. The dropped executables are then run by any subsequent `git` or `dulwich` command that invokes the matching hook, resulting in arbitrary code execution. This is the dulwich equivalent of the upstream Git fixes for CVE-2024-32002 / CVE-2024-32004, which were never propagated into dulwich's separately implemented submodule porcelain. Version 1.2.5 patches the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Release 1.2.5 · jelmer/dulwich
This is a security release. All users are encouraged to upgrade.
Security fixes
GHSA-gfhv-vqv2-4544 -- Validate submodule paths in porcelain.submodule_update (and thus porcelain.clone(recurse_sub...
Security fixes
GHSA-gfhv-vqv2-4544 -- Validate submodule paths in porcelain.submodule_update (and thus porcelain.clone(recurse_sub...
🚨 CVE-2026-9061
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not sanitize and escape store logo metadata before storing it and outputting it on the Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 admin page, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the `unfiltered_html` capability is disallowed (e.g. in a multisite network).
🎖@cveNotify
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not sanitize and escape store logo metadata before storing it and outputting it on the Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 admin page, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the `unfiltered_html` capability is disallowed (e.g. in a multisite network).
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Stored XSS via logo_name
See details on Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Stored XSS via logo_name CVE 2026-9061. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-9062
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not validate a parameter before using it in a file path, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to read arbitrary `.php` files from the server, including configuration files that contain database credentials and authentication keys.
🎖@cveNotify
The Store Locator WordPress plugin before 1.6.9 does not validate a parameter before using it in a file path, allowing high-privileged users such as administrators to read arbitrary `.php` files from the server, including configuration files that contain database credentials and authentication keys.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Arbitrary File Read via Path Traversal
See details on Agile Store Locator < 1.6.9 - Admin+ Arbitrary File Read via Path Traversal CVE 2026-9062. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-9278
The Form Builder CP WordPress plugin before 1.2.47 does not properly sanitize a form configuration value before storing it and using it as part of a client-side script execution, allowing authenticated users with Editor-level access and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks against any visitor of a page rendering the affected form, even when the `unfiltered_html` capability is disallowed (e.g. in a multisite network).
🎖@cveNotify
The Form Builder CP WordPress plugin before 1.2.47 does not properly sanitize a form configuration value before storing it and using it as part of a client-side script execution, allowing authenticated users with Editor-level access and above to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks against any visitor of a page rendering the affected form, even when the `unfiltered_html` capability is disallowed (e.g. in a multisite network).
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Form Builder CP < 1.2.47 - Editor+ Stored XSS via form_structure
See details on Form Builder CP < 1.2.47 - Editor+ Stored XSS via form_structure CVE 2026-9278. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-10081
The Unlimited Elements For Elementor WordPress plugin before 2.0.11 does not sanitize or escape Google review content fetched from the Serp API before rendering it in the Google Reviews widget output, allowing unauthenticated attackers who submit a malicious review on the targeted business's Google listing to deliver Stored XSS to any visitor (including administrators) of any WP page displaying that Place ID's reviews.
🎖@cveNotify
The Unlimited Elements For Elementor WordPress plugin before 2.0.11 does not sanitize or escape Google review content fetched from the Serp API before rendering it in the Google Reviews widget output, allowing unauthenticated attackers who submit a malicious review on the targeted business's Google listing to deliver Stored XSS to any visitor (including administrators) of any WP page displaying that Place ID's reviews.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Unlimited Elements for Elementor < 2.0.11 - Unauthenticated Stored XSS via Google Reviews Widget
See details on Unlimited Elements for Elementor < 2.0.11 - Unauthenticated Stored XSS via Google Reviews Widget CVE 2026-10081. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-10724
The Reviews Feed WordPress plugin before 2.6.5 does not neutralize WordPress shortcodes contained in third-party review content before rendering it through its dynamic block, allowing unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes on pages that display the feed by planting a shortcode in a review on the connected source.
🎖@cveNotify
The Reviews Feed WordPress plugin before 2.6.5 does not neutralize WordPress shortcodes contained in third-party review content before rendering it through its dynamic block, allowing unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes on pages that display the feed by planting a shortcode in a review on the connected source.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Reviews Feed < 2.6.5 - Unauthenticated Stored Arbitrary Shortcode Execution via Google Reviews
See details on Reviews Feed < 2.6.5 - Unauthenticated Stored Arbitrary Shortcode Execution via Google Reviews CVE 2026-10724. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-10755
The All in One SEO WordPress plugin before 4.9.9 does not correctly restrict access to some of its AI integration REST API endpoints, allowing users with low-level privileges such as Contributors to overwrite or reset the site-wide AI integration state.
🎖@cveNotify
The All in One SEO WordPress plugin before 4.9.9 does not correctly restrict access to some of its AI integration REST API endpoints, allowing users with low-level privileges such as Contributors to overwrite or reset the site-wide AI integration state.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
All in One SEO < 4.9.9 – Contributor+ Incorrect Authorization via AI Integration
See details on All in One SEO < 4.9.9 – Contributor+ Incorrect Authorization via AI Integration CVE 2026-10755. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-12972
The PayPlus Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 8.2.2 does not perform authorization or order-ownership validation in one of its AJAX actions available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to tamper with the payment-related metadata of arbitrary WooCommerce orders.
🎖@cveNotify
The PayPlus Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 8.2.2 does not perform authorization or order-ownership validation in one of its AJAX actions available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to tamper with the payment-related metadata of arbitrary WooCommerce orders.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
PayPlus Payment Gateway < 8.2.2 - Unauthenticated Order Payment Metadata Tampering
See details on PayPlus Payment Gateway < 8.2.2 - Unauthenticated Order Payment Metadata Tampering CVE 2026-12972. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-12973
The PayPlus Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 8.2.2 does not perform authorization or order-ownership validation in one of its AJAX actions available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to disclose the secret order key of arbitrary WooCommerce orders and, under some configurations, to modify order statuses.
🎖@cveNotify
The PayPlus Payment Gateway WordPress plugin before 8.2.2 does not perform authorization or order-ownership validation in one of its AJAX actions available to unauthenticated users, allowing them to disclose the secret order key of arbitrary WooCommerce orders and, under some configurations, to modify order statuses.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
PayPlus Payment Gateway < 8.2.2 - Unauthenticated Order Key Disclosure and Order Status Modification
See details on PayPlus Payment Gateway < 8.2.2 - Unauthenticated Order Key Disclosure and Order Status Modification CVE 2026-12973. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-13142
The Social Login, Passkeys, Magic Link & Email OTP WordPress plugin before 1.4.1 does not enforce rate limiting or a working attempt lockout on its passwordless email one-time-password verification, and stores the short numeric codes in plaintext, allowing an unauthenticated attacker who knows a registered email address to brute-force the code and log in as that user, including an administrator, leading to full site takeover.
🎖@cveNotify
The Social Login, Passkeys, Magic Link & Email OTP WordPress plugin before 1.4.1 does not enforce rate limiting or a working attempt lockout on its passwordless email one-time-password verification, and stores the short numeric codes in plaintext, allowing an unauthenticated attacker who knows a registered email address to brute-force the code and log in as that user, including an administrator, leading to full site takeover.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Passwordless Login by VentraConnect < 1.4.1 - Unauthenticated Account Takeover via Email OTP Brute Force
See details on Passwordless Login by VentraConnect < 1.4.1 - Unauthenticated Account Takeover via Email OTP Brute Force CVE 2026-13142. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2024-51311
The Tenda TX9 V22.03.02.05 firmware has a stack overflow vulnerability in the sub_4418CC function of the file /goform/SetNetControlList.
🎖@cveNotify
The Tenda TX9 V22.03.02.05 firmware has a stack overflow vulnerability in the sub_4418CC function of the file /goform/SetNetControlList.
🎖@cveNotify
Gitee
GuoXB0_0/IoT-Vuls:
🚨 CVE-2024-51313
The Tenda TX9 V22.03.02.20 firmware has a stack overflow vulnerability in the sub_42EA38 function of the file /goform/SetVirtualServerCfg.
🎖@cveNotify
The Tenda TX9 V22.03.02.20 firmware has a stack overflow vulnerability in the sub_42EA38 function of the file /goform/SetVirtualServerCfg.
🎖@cveNotify
Gitee
GuoXB0_0/IoT-Vuls: