🚨 CVE-2026-61486
** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Apache Lucy.
This issue affects Apache Lucy: all versions.
As this project is retired, we do not plan to release a version that fixes this issue. Users are recommended to find an alternative or restrict access to the instance to trusted users.
NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
🎖@cveNotify
** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Apache Lucy.
This issue affects Apache Lucy: all versions.
As this project is retired, we do not plan to release a version that fixes this issue. Users are recommended to find an alternative or restrict access to the instance to trusted users.
NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-48834
Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
Unauthenticated attackers can cause a denial of service via a specially crafted Accept-Language header that triggers excessive CPU consumption during parsing.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
Unauthenticated attackers can cause a denial of service via a specially crafted Accept-Language header that triggers excessive CPU consumption during parsing.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-48912
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
A missing ownership check in the avatar-cleanup logic allows any authenticated user to delete other users' uploaded files by supplying their file URLs.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
A missing ownership check in the avatar-cleanup logic allows any authenticated user to delete other users' uploaded files by supplying their file URLs.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-50749
Improper Authorization vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
Any authenticated user can reject arbitrary pending edit-revisions without review permission due to a missing authorization check on the reject operation.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Improper Authorization vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
Any authenticated user can reject arbitrary pending edit-revisions without review permission due to a missing authorization check on the reject operation.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-60023
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
Deleted or pending answers could be retrieved by unauthorized users through the single-answer read path when the parent question remained visible, exposing answer content that should not have been accessible.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor vulnerability in Apache Answer.
This issue affects Apache Answer: through 2.0.1.
Deleted or pending answers could be retrieved by unauthorized users through the single-answer read path when the parent question remained visible, exposing answer content that should not have been accessible.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.2, which fixes the issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-7657
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow could allow server-side request forgery (SSRF) due to incomplete and ineffective SSRF protection enforcement.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 Langflow could allow server-side request forgery (SSRF) due to incomplete and ineffective SSRF protection enforcement.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow OSS is affected by server-side request forgery in provider validation and API request functionality
Langflow OSS includes outbound network request functionality for provider validation and API request execution. Weaknesses in request destination validation and enforcement could allow authenticated users to induce requests to unintended internal or external…
🚨 CVE-2026-9081
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 contains a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the validate_model_provider_key() function for the Ollama provider. The function accepts a user-supplied OLLAMA_BASE_URL parameter and passes it directly to requests.get() without validation, scheme/host allowlisting, or filtering of private IP ranges (loopback, RFC1918, link-local addresses).
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3, and 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 contains a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the validate_model_provider_key() function for the Ollama provider. The function accepts a user-supplied OLLAMA_BASE_URL parameter and passes it directly to requests.get() without validation, scheme/host allowlisting, or filtering of private IP ranges (loopback, RFC1918, link-local addresses).
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow OSS is affected by server-side request forgery in provider validation and API request functionality
Langflow OSS includes outbound network request functionality for provider validation and API request execution. Weaknesses in request destination validation and enforcement could allow authenticated users to induce requests to unintended internal or external…
🚨 CVE-2026-8478
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote attacker to inject arbitrary code on the system, due to the improper control of user input code.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow a remote attacker to inject arbitrary code on the system, due to the improper control of user input code.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow OSS is affected by arbitrary code execution in component generation, validation, and custom component…
Langflow OSS supports Agentic Assistant generated components and user-supplied custom Python components for workflow development. Weaknesses in code security scanning, runtime validation, custom component execution paths, and trusted code enforcement could…
🚨 CVE-2026-9130
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the MemoryComponent that allows authenticated users to access chat history of other users via session_id collision. The MemoryComponent.retrieve_messages and store_message methods filter on session_id without validating flow_id or user_id ownership, enabling cross-user information disclosure through multiple authenticated API endpoints including /api/v1/run/*, /api/v1/responses, and /api/v2/workflow/*. This vulnerability only affects multi-user deployments with LANGFLOW_AUTO_LOGIN=False.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the MemoryComponent that allows authenticated users to access chat history of other users via session_id collision. The MemoryComponent.retrieve_messages and store_message methods filter on session_id without validating flow_id or user_id ownership, enabling cross-user information disclosure through multiple authenticated API endpoints including /api/v1/run/*, /api/v1/responses, and /api/v2/workflow/*. This vulnerability only affects multi-user deployments with LANGFLOW_AUTO_LOGIN=False.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow OSS is affected by arbitrary code execution in custom component validation and trusted code enforcement
Langflow OSS supports custom Python components and validation of component code for component development workflows. Weaknesses in custom component execution paths, validation endpoints, and trusted template enforcement could allow authenticated users to…
🚨 CVE-2026-9196
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow an authenticated attacker to execute unintended code during Agentic Assistant validation due to improper handling of LLM‑generated components. The application executes model‑generated Python code in the backend during validation prior to user approval, which may allow an attacker to trigger side effects such as outbound network access, file system interaction, or data exfiltration with the privileges of the Langflow backend process.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow an authenticated attacker to execute unintended code during Agentic Assistant validation due to improper handling of LLM‑generated components. The application executes model‑generated Python code in the backend during validation prior to user approval, which may allow an attacker to trigger side effects such as outbound network access, file system interaction, or data exfiltration with the privileges of the Langflow backend process.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow OSS is affected by arbitrary code execution in component generation, validation, and custom component…
Langflow OSS supports Agentic Assistant generated components and user-supplied custom Python components for workflow development. Weaknesses in code security scanning, runtime validation, custom component execution paths, and trusted code enforcement could…
🚨 CVE-2026-9201
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a cryptographic weakness in the custom component validation mechanism. When the optional hardening mode that restricts execution to trusted component templates is enabled, the application validates component code using a truncated SHA‑256 hash. Because the hash comparison relies on only a portion of the digest, an attacker can craft malicious component code that collides with a trusted template hash and bypasses validation. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to introduce and execute unauthorized Python code within the Langflow process, defeating the intended security control and potentially leading to full compromise of the affected instance.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.3 could allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a cryptographic weakness in the custom component validation mechanism. When the optional hardening mode that restricts execution to trusted component templates is enabled, the application validates component code using a truncated SHA‑256 hash. Because the hash comparison relies on only a portion of the digest, an attacker can craft malicious component code that collides with a trusted template hash and bypasses validation. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to introduce and execute unauthorized Python code within the Langflow process, defeating the intended security control and potentially leading to full compromise of the affected instance.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow OSS is affected by arbitrary code execution in component generation, validation, and custom component…
Langflow OSS supports Agentic Assistant generated components and user-supplied custom Python components for workflow development. Weaknesses in code security scanning, runtime validation, custom component execution paths, and trusted code enforcement could…
🚨 CVE-2026-9205
IBM Langflow OSS contains a weak cryptographic key derivation vulnerability in the ensure_fernet_key() function.
🎖@cveNotify
IBM Langflow OSS contains a weak cryptographic key derivation vulnerability in the ensure_fernet_key() function.
🎖@cveNotify
Ibm
Security Bulletin: Langflow is affected by weaknesses in secret handling and sensitive configuration access
Langflow includes features for secret protection, environment access, and runtime configuration of workflow components. Weaknesses in cryptographic key handling, exposure of process environment values, and insufficient restriction of sensitive runtime configuration…
🚨 CVE-2026-64640
Apache Polaris did not consistently validate storage locations supplied during table and view registration.
An authenticated principal with permission to register a table or view could, depending on the affected release and registration path, cause Polaris to use the catalog's storage credentials to read a caller-selected Iceberg metadata file before verifying that the file was within the catalog's allowed storage locations.
If the catalog's underlying credentials could read an object outside that boundary, this could disclose limited information from the object.
Polaris could also accept registration metadata located within an allowed location that contained references to storage locations outside the allowed boundary.
This second condition did not itself cause Polaris to read the referenced external locations during registration.
The demonstrated impact is limited to confidentiality.
No unauthorized data modification or availability impact has been demonstrated.
The server-side read requires a deployment using S3 credential vending and an object outside the allowed locations that the catalog's underlying storage credentials can read.
Exploitation requires an authenticated principal with table- or view-registration privileges.
🎖@cveNotify
Apache Polaris did not consistently validate storage locations supplied during table and view registration.
An authenticated principal with permission to register a table or view could, depending on the affected release and registration path, cause Polaris to use the catalog's storage credentials to read a caller-selected Iceberg metadata file before verifying that the file was within the catalog's allowed storage locations.
If the catalog's underlying credentials could read an object outside that boundary, this could disclose limited information from the object.
Polaris could also accept registration metadata located within an allowed location that contained references to storage locations outside the allowed boundary.
This second condition did not itself cause Polaris to read the referenced external locations during registration.
The demonstrated impact is limited to confidentiality.
No unauthorized data modification or availability impact has been demonstrated.
The server-side read requires a deployment using S3 credential vending and an object outside the allowed locations that the catalog's underlying storage credentials can read.
Exploitation requires an authenticated principal with table- or view-registration privileges.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-54225
Apache CXF allows to control the maximum attachment size via the "attachment-max-size". Prior to Apache CXF 4.2.3 and 4.1.8 and 3.6.12, there was no default placed on this size, meaning that a denial of service attack is possible if the user doesn't explicitly set the limit. Users should update to Apache CXF 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12 which fixes this problem by imposing a default attachment size limit of 50mb.
🎖@cveNotify
Apache CXF allows to control the maximum attachment size via the "attachment-max-size". Prior to Apache CXF 4.2.3 and 4.1.8 and 3.6.12, there was no default placed on this size, meaning that a denial of service attack is possible if the user doesn't explicitly set the limit. Users should update to Apache CXF 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12 which fixes this problem by imposing a default attachment size limit of 50mb.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-57817
The OpenID Connect Core 1.0 specification mandates that the RP MUST validate the `c_hash` parameter when operating in the Hybrid Flow. If an Apache CXF RP is integrated with a non-compliant or misconfigured Identity Provider (IdP) that omits the `c_hash`, the RP becomes vulnerable to Authorization Code Substitution/Injection attacks. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
The OpenID Connect Core 1.0 specification mandates that the RP MUST validate the `c_hash` parameter when operating in the Hybrid Flow. If an Apache CXF RP is integrated with a non-compliant or misconfigured Identity Provider (IdP) that omits the `c_hash`, the RP becomes vulnerable to Authorization Code Substitution/Injection attacks. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-57819
Apache CXF allows to set a limit on the number of form parameters in a JAX-RS message via the "maxFormParameterCount" configuration option. However, no default limit is set which may lead to denial of service attacks when processing requests with very large numbers of form parameters. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue by using a default limit of 500 parameters.
🎖@cveNotify
Apache CXF allows to set a limit on the number of form parameters in a JAX-RS message via the "maxFormParameterCount" configuration option. However, no default limit is set which may lead to denial of service attacks when processing requests with very large numbers of form parameters. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue by using a default limit of 500 parameters.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-64958
An incomplete fix for CVE-2026-50645 means that it is still possible to perform a denial of service attack on Apache CXF by sending a message with many attachment headers. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
An incomplete fix for CVE-2026-50645 means that it is still possible to perform a denial of service attack on Apache CXF by sending a message with many attachment headers. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-65432
Apache CXF reads a top-level WSDL through its hardened StaxUtils path, which disables XML DTDs and external entities. However, any <wsdl:import> or <xsd:import> referenced from that top-level WSDL is handed off to WSDL4J, which does not disable DOCTYPE declarations or external entities. As a result, the protections applied to the top-level document do not extend to imported documents, leaving imported WSDL/XSD content vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) attacks. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Apache CXF reads a top-level WSDL through its hardened StaxUtils path, which disables XML DTDs and external entities. However, any <wsdl:import> or <xsd:import> referenced from that top-level WSDL is handed off to WSDL4J, which does not disable DOCTYPE declarations or external entities. As a result, the protections applied to the top-level document do not extend to imported documents, leaving imported WSDL/XSD content vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) attacks. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-66909
Apache CXF's JMS transport deserializes the body of any inbound JMS ObjectMessage using native Java deserialization, with no type restrictions in place. Any attacker able to place a message on the service's JMS destination can submit a malicious serialized object, leading to denial of service or, if a suitable gadget class is on the classpath, remote code execution. The fix disables ObjectMessage deserialization by default, with a configuration switch to re-enable it if needed. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
Apache CXF's JMS transport deserializes the body of any inbound JMS ObjectMessage using native Java deserialization, with no type restrictions in place. Any attacker able to place a message on the service's JMS destination can submit a malicious serialized object, leading to denial of service or, if a suitable gadget class is on the classpath, remote code execution. The fix disables ObjectMessage deserialization by default, with a configuration switch to re-enable it if needed. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-57818
A race condition in JCacheCodeDataProvider allows an attacker to redeem a single authorization code multiple times via concurrent requests, resulting in the issuance of multiple distinct, valid access tokens. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3, 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
A race condition in JCacheCodeDataProvider allows an attacker to redeem a single authorization code multiple times via concurrent requests, resulting in the issuance of multiple distinct, valid access tokens. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3, 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-61466
In Apache CXF's OAuth2 Dynamic Client Registration endpoint, the authorization server accepts and stores the `scope` value supplied in the client registration request verbatim, without validating it against an AS-defined allowlist. This could lead to a client self-assigning privileged scopes at registration time. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify
In Apache CXF's OAuth2 Dynamic Client Registration endpoint, the authorization server accepts and stores the `scope` value supplied in the client registration request verbatim, without validating it against an AS-defined allowlist. This could lead to a client self-assigning privileged scopes at registration time. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.2.3 or 4.1.8 or 3.6.12, which fix this issue.
🎖@cveNotify