🚨 CVE-2026-28390
Issue summary: During processing of a crafted CMS EnvelopedData message
with KeyTransportRecipientInfo a NULL pointer dereference can happen.
Impact summary: Applications that process attacker-controlled CMS data may
crash before authentication or cryptographic operations occur resulting in
Denial of Service.
When a CMS EnvelopedData message that uses KeyTransportRecipientInfo with
RSA-OAEP encryption is processed, the optional parameters field of
RSA-OAEP SourceFunc algorithm identifier is examined without checking
for its presence. This results in a NULL pointer dereference if the field
is missing.
Applications and services that call CMS_decrypt() on untrusted input
(e.g., S/MIME processing or CMS-based protocols) are vulnerable.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: During processing of a crafted CMS EnvelopedData message
with KeyTransportRecipientInfo a NULL pointer dereference can happen.
Impact summary: Applications that process attacker-controlled CMS data may
crash before authentication or cryptographic operations occur resulting in
Denial of Service.
When a CMS EnvelopedData message that uses KeyTransportRecipientInfo with
RSA-OAEP encryption is processed, the optional parameters field of
RSA-OAEP SourceFunc algorithm identifier is examined without checking
for its presence. This results in a NULL pointer dereference if the field
is missing.
Applications and services that call CMS_decrypt() on untrusted input
(e.g., S/MIME processing or CMS-based protocols) are vulnerable.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Fix NULL deref in rsa_cms_decrypt · openssl/openssl@01194a8
Very simmilar to CVE-2026-28389, ensure that if we are missing
parameters in RSA-OAEP SourceFunc in CMS KeyTransportRecipientInfo,
we don't segfault when decrypting.
Co-authored-by: Tomas ...
parameters in RSA-OAEP SourceFunc in CMS KeyTransportRecipientInfo,
we don't segfault when decrypting.
Co-authored-by: Tomas ...
🚨 CVE-2026-31790
Issue summary: Applications using RSASVE key encapsulation to establish
a secret encryption key can send contents of an uninitialized memory buffer to
a malicious peer.
Impact summary: The uninitialized buffer might contain sensitive data from the
previous execution of the application process which leads to sensitive data
leakage to an attacker.
RSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and -1
on error. The affected code tests only whether the return value is non-zero.
As a result, if RSA encryption fails, encapsulation can still return success to
the caller, set the output lengths, and leave the caller to use the contents of
the ciphertext buffer as if a valid KEM ciphertext had been produced.
If applications use EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() with RSA/RSASVE on an
attacker-supplied invalid RSA public key without first validating that key,
then this may cause stale or uninitialized contents of the caller-provided
ciphertext buffer to be disclosed to the attacker in place of the KEM
ciphertext.
As a workaround calling EVP_PKEY_public_check() or
EVP_PKEY_public_check_quick() before EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() will mitigate
the issue.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 are affected by this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Issue summary: Applications using RSASVE key encapsulation to establish
a secret encryption key can send contents of an uninitialized memory buffer to
a malicious peer.
Impact summary: The uninitialized buffer might contain sensitive data from the
previous execution of the application process which leads to sensitive data
leakage to an attacker.
RSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and -1
on error. The affected code tests only whether the return value is non-zero.
As a result, if RSA encryption fails, encapsulation can still return success to
the caller, set the output lengths, and leave the caller to use the contents of
the ciphertext buffer as if a valid KEM ciphertext had been produced.
If applications use EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() with RSA/RSASVE on an
attacker-supplied invalid RSA public key without first validating that key,
then this may cause stale or uninitialized contents of the caller-provided
ciphertext buffer to be disclosed to the attacker in place of the KEM
ciphertext.
As a workaround calling EVP_PKEY_public_check() or
EVP_PKEY_public_check_quick() before EVP_PKEY_encapsulate() will mitigate
the issue.
The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.1 and 3.0 are affected by this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
rsa_kem: validate RSA_public_encrypt() result in RSASVE · openssl/openssl@001e01d
RSA_public_encrypt() returns the number of bytes written on success and
-1 on failure. With the existing `if (ret)` check, a provider-side RSA KEM
encapsulation can incorrectly succeed when the und...
-1 on failure. With the existing `if (ret)` check, a provider-side RSA KEM
encapsulation can incorrectly succeed when the und...
🚨 CVE-2025-20628
An insufficient granularity of access control vulnerability exists in PingIDM (formerly ForgeRock Identity Management) where administrators cannot properly configure access rules for Remote Connector Servers (RCS) running in client mode. This means attackers can spoof a client-mode RCS (if one exists) to intercept and/or modify an identity’s security-relevant properties, such as passwords and account recovery information. This issue is exploitable only when an RCS is configured to run in client mode.
🎖@cveNotify
An insufficient granularity of access control vulnerability exists in PingIDM (formerly ForgeRock Identity Management) where administrators cannot properly configure access rules for Remote Connector Servers (RCS) running in client mode. This means attackers can spoof a client-mode RCS (if one exists) to intercept and/or modify an identity’s security-relevant properties, such as passwords and account recovery information. This issue is exploitable only when an RCS is configured to run in client mode.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-1342
IBM Verify Identity Access Container 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access Container 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 and IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 could allow a locally authenticated user to execute malicious scripts from outside of its control sphere.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Verify Identity Access Container 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access Container 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 and IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 could allow a locally authenticated user to execute malicious scripts from outside of its control sphere.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Security Vulnerabilities have been found in IBM Verify Identity Access and IBM Security Verify Access
Security Vulnerabilities have been addressed in IBM Verify Identity Access and IBM Security Verify Access
🚨 CVE-2026-2263
The Hustle – Email Marketing, Lead Generation, Optins, Popups plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'hustle_module_converted' AJAX action in all versions up to, and including, 7.8.10.2. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge conversion tracking events for any Hustle module, including draft modules that are never displayed to users, thereby manipulating marketing analytics and conversion statistics.
🎖@cveNotify
The Hustle – Email Marketing, Lead Generation, Optins, Popups plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'hustle_module_converted' AJAX action in all versions up to, and including, 7.8.10.2. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge conversion tracking events for any Hustle module, including draft modules that are never displayed to users, thereby manipulating marketing analytics and conversion statistics.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-4394
The Gravity Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the Credit Card field's 'Card Type' sub-field (`input_<id>.4`) in all versions up to, and including, 2.9.30. This is due to the `get_value_entry_detail()` method in the `GF_Field_CreditCard` class outputting the card type value without escaping, combined with `get_value_save_entry()` accepting and storing unsanitized user input for the `input_<id>.4` parameter. The Card Type field is not rendered on the frontend form (it is normally derived from the card number), but the backend submission parser blindly accepts it if included in the POST request. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts that execute when an administrator views the form entry in the WordPress dashboard.
🎖@cveNotify
The Gravity Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the Credit Card field's 'Card Type' sub-field (`input_<id>.4`) in all versions up to, and including, 2.9.30. This is due to the `get_value_entry_detail()` method in the `GF_Field_CreditCard` class outputting the card type value without escaping, combined with `get_value_save_entry()` accepting and storing unsanitized user input for the `input_<id>.4` parameter. The Card Type field is not rendered on the frontend form (it is normally derived from the card number), but the backend submission parser blindly accepts it if included in the POST request. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts that execute when an administrator views the form entry in the WordPress dashboard.
🎖@cveNotify
Gravity Forms Documentation
Gravity Forms Changelog
Stay current with the Gravity Forms Change Log. Keep track of all updates for an enhanced form-building experience.
🚨 CVE-2026-4401
The Download Monitor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in the `actions_handler()` and `bulk_actions_handler()` methods in `class-dlm-downloads-path.php` in all versions up to, and including, 5.1.10. This is due to missing nonce verification on these functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete, disable, or enable approved download paths via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
🎖@cveNotify
The Download Monitor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in the `actions_handler()` and `bulk_actions_handler()` methods in `class-dlm-downloads-path.php` in all versions up to, and including, 5.1.10. This is due to missing nonce verification on these functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete, disable, or enable approved download paths via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-4406
The Gravity Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the `form_ids` parameter in the `gform_get_config` AJAX action in all versions up to, and including, 2.9.30. This is due to the `GFCommon::send_json()` method outputting JSON-encoded data wrapped in HTML comment delimiters using `echo` and `wp_die()`, which serves the response with a `Content-Type: text/html` header instead of `application/json`. The `wp_json_encode()` function does not HTML-encode angle brackets within JSON string values, allowing injected HTML/script tags in `form_ids` array values to be parsed and executed by the browser. The required `config_nonce` is generated with `wp_create_nonce('gform_config_ajax')` and is publicly embedded on every page that renders a Gravity Forms form, making it identical for all unauthenticated visitors within the same 12-hour nonce tick. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This vulnerability cannot be exploited against users who are authenticated on the target system, but could be used to alter the target page.
🎖@cveNotify
The Gravity Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the `form_ids` parameter in the `gform_get_config` AJAX action in all versions up to, and including, 2.9.30. This is due to the `GFCommon::send_json()` method outputting JSON-encoded data wrapped in HTML comment delimiters using `echo` and `wp_die()`, which serves the response with a `Content-Type: text/html` header instead of `application/json`. The `wp_json_encode()` function does not HTML-encode angle brackets within JSON string values, allowing injected HTML/script tags in `form_ids` array values to be parsed and executed by the browser. The required `config_nonce` is generated with `wp_create_nonce('gform_config_ajax')` and is publicly embedded on every page that renders a Gravity Forms form, making it identical for all unauthenticated visitors within the same 12-hour nonce tick. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This vulnerability cannot be exploited against users who are authenticated on the target system, but could be used to alter the target page.
🎖@cveNotify
Gravity Forms Documentation
Gravity Forms Changelog
Stay current with the Gravity Forms Change Log. Keep track of all updates for an enhanced form-building experience.
🚨 CVE-2026-3357
IBM Langflow Desktop 1.6.0 through 1.8.2 Langflow could allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary code on the system, caused by an insecure default setting which permits the deserialization of untrusted data in the FAISS component.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow Desktop 1.6.0 through 1.8.2 Langflow could allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary code on the system, caused by an insecure default setting which permits the deserialization of untrusted data in the FAISS component.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: IBM Langflow Desktop FAISS Vector Store Remote Code Execution via malicious Pickle file
IBM Langflow Desktop supports retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) workflows through its FAISS Vector Store component, which loads persisted vector indexes and associated metadata from disk. A vulnerability in the FAISS component arises from unsafe deserialization…
🚨 CVE-2026-33273
Unrestricted upload of file with dangerous type issue exists in MATCHA INVOICE 2.6.6 and earlier. If this vulnerability is exploited, an arbitrary file may be created by an administrator of the product. As a result, arbitrary code may be executed on the server.
🎖@cveNotify
Unrestricted upload of file with dangerous type issue exists in MATCHA INVOICE 2.6.6 and earlier. If this vulnerability is exploited, an arbitrary file may be created by an administrator of the product. As a result, arbitrary code may be executed on the server.
🎖@cveNotify
jvn.jp
JVN#33581068: Multiple vulnerabilities in MATCHA series
Japan Vulnerability Notes
🚨 CVE-2026-3311
The The Plus Addons for Elementor – Addons for Elementor, Page Templates, Widgets, Mega Menu, WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's Progress Bar shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 6.4.9 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
🎖@cveNotify
The The Plus Addons for Elementor – Addons for Elementor, Page Templates, Widgets, Mega Menu, WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's Progress Bar shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 6.4.9 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-33088
Movable Type provided by Six Apart Ltd. contains an SQL Injection vulnerability which may allow an attacker to execute an arbitrary SQL statement.
🎖@cveNotify
Movable Type provided by Six Apart Ltd. contains an SQL Injection vulnerability which may allow an attacker to execute an arbitrary SQL statement.
🎖@cveNotify
jvn.jp
JVN#66473735: Multiple vulnerabilities in Movable Type
Japan Vulnerability Notes
🚨 CVE-2026-33229
XWiki Platform is a generic wiki platform offering runtime services for applications built on top of it. Prior to 17.4.8 and 17.10.1, an improperly protected scripting API allows any user with script right to bypass the sandboxing of the Velocity scripting API and execute, e.g., arbitrary Python scripts, allowing full access to the XWiki instance and thereby compromising the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the whole instance. Note that script right already constitutes a high level of access that we don't recommend giving to untrusted users. This vulnerability is fixed in 17.4.8 and 17.10.1.
🎖@cveNotify
XWiki Platform is a generic wiki platform offering runtime services for applications built on top of it. Prior to 17.4.8 and 17.10.1, an improperly protected scripting API allows any user with script right to bypass the sandboxing of the Velocity scripting API and execute, e.g., arbitrary Python scripts, allowing full access to the XWiki instance and thereby compromising the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the whole instance. Note that script right already constitutes a high level of access that we don't recommend giving to untrusted users. This vulnerability is fixed in 17.4.8 and 17.10.1.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
XWIKI-23698: ScriptXWikiServletRequest#getRequest() should only be av… · xwiki/xwiki-platform@9fe84da
…ailable with programming right
* Check for programming right in com.xpn.xwiki.render.ScriptXWikiServletRequest.getRequest.
* Add a unit test.
* Check for programming right in com.xpn.xwiki.render.ScriptXWikiServletRequest.getRequest.
* Add a unit test.
🚨 CVE-2026-33753
rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to 1.0.6, an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client's signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target common_name and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.6.
🎖@cveNotify
rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to 1.0.6, an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client's signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target common_name and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.6.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
Improper Certificate Validation in rfc3161-client
### Summary
An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`'s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logi...
An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`'s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logi...
🚨 CVE-2026-33460
Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to cross-space information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). A user with Fleet agent management privileges in one Kibana space can retrieve Fleet Server policy details from other spaces through an internal enrollment endpoint. The endpoint bypasses space-scoped access controls by using an unscoped internal client, returning operational identifiers, policy names, management state, and infrastructure linkage details from spaces the user is not authorized to access.
🎖@cveNotify
Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to cross-space information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). A user with Fleet agent management privileges in one Kibana space can retrieve Fleet Server policy details from other spaces through an internal enrollment endpoint. The endpoint bypasses space-scoped access controls by using an unscoped internal client, returning operational identifiers, policy names, management state, and infrastructure linkage details from spaces the user is not authorized to access.
🎖@cveNotify
Discuss the Elastic Stack
Kibana 8.19.14, 9.2.8, 9.3.3 Security Update (ESA-2026-25)
Incorrect Authorization in Kibana Fleet Leading to Information Disclosure Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to cross-space information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). A user with Fleet agent management privileges in one Kibana…
🚨 CVE-2026-33461
Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). A user with limited Fleet privileges can exploit an internal API endpoint to retrieve sensitive configuration data, including private keys and authentication tokens, that should only be accessible to users with higher-level settings privileges. The endpoint composes its response by fetching full configuration objects and returning them directly, bypassing the authorization checks enforced by the dedicated settings APIs.
🎖@cveNotify
Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). A user with limited Fleet privileges can exploit an internal API endpoint to retrieve sensitive configuration data, including private keys and authentication tokens, that should only be accessible to users with higher-level settings privileges. The endpoint composes its response by fetching full configuration objects and returning them directly, bypassing the authorization checks enforced by the dedicated settings APIs.
🎖@cveNotify
Discuss the Elastic Stack
Kibana 8.19.14, 9.2.8, 9.3.3 Security Update (ESA-2026-24)
Incorrect Authorization in Kibana Fleet Leading to Information Disclosure Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via Privilege Abuse (CAPEC-122). A user with limited Fleet privileges can exploit an internal API endpoint…
🚨 CVE-2026-33458
Server-Side Request Forgery (CWE-918) in Kibana One Workflow can lead to information disclosure. An authenticated user with workflow creation and execution privileges can bypass host allowlist restrictions in the Workflows Execution Engine, potentially exposing sensitive internal endpoints and data.
🎖@cveNotify
Server-Side Request Forgery (CWE-918) in Kibana One Workflow can lead to information disclosure. An authenticated user with workflow creation and execution privileges can bypass host allowlist restrictions in the Workflows Execution Engine, potentially exposing sensitive internal endpoints and data.
🎖@cveNotify
Discuss the Elastic Stack
Kibana 9.3.3 Security Update (ESA-2026-28)
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Kibana One Workflow Leading to Information Disclosure Server-Side Request Forgery (CWE-918) in Kibana One Workflow can lead to information disclosure. An authenticated user with workflow creation and execution privileges…
🚨 CVE-2026-33459
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user with access to the automatic import feature can submit specially crafted requests with excessively large input values. When multiple such requests are sent concurrently, the backend services become unstable, resulting in service disruption and deployment unavailability for all users.
🎖@cveNotify
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user with access to the automatic import feature can submit specially crafted requests with excessively large input values. When multiple such requests are sent concurrently, the backend services become unstable, resulting in service disruption and deployment unavailability for all users.
🎖@cveNotify
Discuss the Elastic Stack
Kibana 8.19.14, 9.2.8, 9.3.3 Security Update (ESA-2026-26)
Uncontrolled Resource Consumption in Kibana Leading to Denial of Service Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated user with access to the automatic import feature…
🚨 CVE-2026-33466
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (CWE-22) in Logstash can lead to arbitrary file write and potentially remote code execution via Relative Path Traversal (CAPEC-139). The archive extraction utilities used by Logstash do not properly validate file paths within compressed archives. An attacker who can serve a specially crafted archive to Logstash through a compromised or attacker-controlled update endpoint can write arbitrary files to the host filesystem with the privileges of the Logstash process. In certain configurations where automatic pipeline reloading is enabled, this can be escalated to remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (CWE-22) in Logstash can lead to arbitrary file write and potentially remote code execution via Relative Path Traversal (CAPEC-139). The archive extraction utilities used by Logstash do not properly validate file paths within compressed archives. An attacker who can serve a specially crafted archive to Logstash through a compromised or attacker-controlled update endpoint can write arbitrary files to the host filesystem with the privileges of the Logstash process. In certain configurations where automatic pipeline reloading is enabled, this can be escalated to remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Discuss the Elastic Stack
Logstash 8.19.14, 9.2.8, 9.3.3 Security Update (ESA-2026-29)
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory in Logstash Leading to Arbitrary File Write Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (CWE-22) in Logstash can lead to arbitrary file write and potentially remote code execution…
🚨 CVE-2026-33350
LORIS (Longitudinal Online Research and Imaging System) is a self-hosted web application that provides data- and project-management for neuroimaging research. Prior to 27.0.3 and 28.0.1, a SQL injection has been identified in some code sections for the MRI feedback popup window of the imaging browser. Attackers can use SQL ingestion to access/alter data on the server. This vulnerability is fixed in 27.0.3 and 28.0.1.
🎖@cveNotify
LORIS (Longitudinal Online Research and Imaging System) is a self-hosted web application that provides data- and project-management for neuroimaging research. Prior to 27.0.3 and 28.0.1, a SQL injection has been identified in some code sections for the MRI feedback popup window of the imaging browser. Attackers can use SQL ingestion to access/alter data on the server. This vulnerability is fixed in 27.0.3 and 28.0.1.
🎖@cveNotify
GitHub
SQL injection in MRI feedback popup
### Impact
SQL injection has been identified in some code sections for the MRI feedback popup window of the imaging browser. Attackers can use SQL ingestion to access/alter data on the server.
...
SQL injection has been identified in some code sections for the MRI feedback popup window of the imaging browser. Attackers can use SQL ingestion to access/alter data on the server.
...
🚨 CVE-2026-33095
Use after free in Microsoft Office Word allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally.
🎖@cveNotify
Use after free in Microsoft Office Word allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code locally.
🎖@cveNotify