🚨 CVE-2026-97230
IO::Socket::SSL::SelfCertificate versions 1.00 for Perl contains malware which executes Python code from an obfuscated URL.
The generate_certificate runs a Python script saved as a certificate file. The pyhton script attempts to retrieve code from a hardcoded http URL that is obfuscated with base64 encoding and run the response body directly.
The impact is that arbitrary code can be invoked as the user, without a dropped script being saved on the affected host.
The releases have no test scripts nor build hooks. The intention may have been to trigger the payload after installation.
The dropper script is in lib/Crypt/SelfCertificate/sample/cert.pem.
This is similar to CVE-2026-95831 for the module Crypt::SelfCertificate.
The SHA-256 digests of the files are
ba24ee8ec3b7f47f65bed62e16fb413ace50653cf44bd8ea90914390922831e0 IO-Socket-SSL-SelfCertificate-1.00.tar.gz
821d38830e5eb8607738421c25ac25f59fff02a6ab67daa32fbd020429454dac IO-Socket-SSL-SelfCertificate-1.00/lib/IO/Socket/SSL/SelfCertificate/sample/cert.pem
d483cb7b23b7271cb11cf242bff4a2e1c02df0b9525eb0429abeea8961c399d5 IO-Socket-SSL-SelfCertificate-1.00-upload.tar.gz
🎖@cveNotify
IO::Socket::SSL::SelfCertificate versions 1.00 for Perl contains malware which executes Python code from an obfuscated URL.
The generate_certificate runs a Python script saved as a certificate file. The pyhton script attempts to retrieve code from a hardcoded http URL that is obfuscated with base64 encoding and run the response body directly.
The impact is that arbitrary code can be invoked as the user, without a dropped script being saved on the affected host.
The releases have no test scripts nor build hooks. The intention may have been to trigger the payload after installation.
The dropper script is in lib/Crypt/SelfCertificate/sample/cert.pem.
This is similar to CVE-2026-95831 for the module Crypt::SelfCertificate.
The SHA-256 digests of the files are
ba24ee8ec3b7f47f65bed62e16fb413ace50653cf44bd8ea90914390922831e0 IO-Socket-SSL-SelfCertificate-1.00.tar.gz
821d38830e5eb8607738421c25ac25f59fff02a6ab67daa32fbd020429454dac IO-Socket-SSL-SelfCertificate-1.00/lib/IO/Socket/SSL/SelfCertificate/sample/cert.pem
d483cb7b23b7271cb11cf242bff4a2e1c02df0b9525eb0429abeea8961c399d5 IO-Socket-SSL-SelfCertificate-1.00-upload.tar.gz
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-84283
Secure Folder 1.2 stores files selected for its password-protected vault as unencrypted files in the Android shared-storage tree. A local application or file manager that has access to the relevant shared-storage path can enumerate, copy, and open those files without authenticating to Secure Folder.
🎖@cveNotify
Secure Folder 1.2 stores files selected for its password-protected vault as unencrypted files in the Android shared-storage tree. A local application or file manager that has access to the relevant shared-storage path can enumerate, copy, and open those files without authenticating to Secure Folder.
🎖@cveNotify
Fluidattacks
Secure Folder 1.2 - Plaintext vault files in shared storage bypass the PIN gate | Fluid Attacks
CVE-2026-84283: Secure Folder 1.2 stores files selected for its password-protected vault as unencrypted files in the Android shared-storage tree. A local application or file manager that has access to the relevant shared-storage path can enumerate, copy,…
🚨 CVE-2026-85082
Root Browser Classic 3.3.0 passes the path of a selected SQLite database to an operating-system shell without safely separating the filename from the command.
🎖@cveNotify
Root Browser Classic 3.3.0 passes the path of a selected SQLite database to an operating-system shell without safely separating the filename from the command.
🎖@cveNotify
Fluidattacks
Root Browser Classic 3.3.0 - OS command injection through crafted SQLite filenames | Fluid Attacks
CVE-2026-85082: Root Browser Classic passes the path of a selected SQLite database to an operating-system shell without safely separating the filename from the command.
🚨 CVE-2026-92288
Lemonldap::NG::Portal versions from 2.20.0 before 2.21.6, from 2.22.0 before 2.23.4 for Perl allow unauthenticated OAuth2 token introspection because checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials does not verify the client secret of a public Relying Party.
checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials() skips the secret comparison for a Relying Party marked public and still returns the authentication method deduced from the request, client_secret_basic or client_secret_post. introspection() rejects a caller only when that method is missing or none, so a request carrying a public client_id and an arbitrary or empty secret passes the endpoint's authentication check.
An attacker who holds an access token and knows the client_id of any public Relying Party can confirm the token is active and read its metadata, including scope, audience, expiry and the sub claim. The sub claim is computed with the calling Relying Party's user identifier attribute, so an attacker can translate a user identifier from one Relying Party to another, defeating per-client and pseudonymous identifiers.
🎖@cveNotify
Lemonldap::NG::Portal versions from 2.20.0 before 2.21.6, from 2.22.0 before 2.23.4 for Perl allow unauthenticated OAuth2 token introspection because checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials does not verify the client secret of a public Relying Party.
checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials() skips the secret comparison for a Relying Party marked public and still returns the authentication method deduced from the request, client_secret_basic or client_secret_post. introspection() rejects a caller only when that method is missing or none, so a request carrying a public client_id and an arbitrary or empty secret passes the endpoint's authentication check.
An attacker who holds an access token and knows the client_id of any public Relying Party can confirm the token is active and read its metadata, including scope, audience, expiry and the sub claim. The sub claim is computed with the calling Relying Party's user identifier attribute, so an attacker can translate a user identifier from one Relying Party to another, defeating per-client and pseudonymous identifiers.
🎖@cveNotify
GitLab
Version 2.21.6 LTS · LemonLDAP NG / lemonldap-ng · GitLab
Bugs:
🚨 CVE-2026-92289
Lemonldap::NG::Portal versions from 2.23.0 before 2.23.4 for Perl allow a PKCE bypass for public Relying Parties in "PKCE or secret" mode because checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials does not verify the client secret.
With oidcRPMetaDataOptionsRequirePKCE set to 2, the authorization endpoint issues a code even when the request carries no code_challenge, and token() admits the exchange as long as a challenge was stored or an authentication method was returned for the caller. checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials() skips the secret comparison for a Relying Party marked public and still returns the method deduced from the request, so any Basic or form credential satisfies the secret branch. validatePKCEChallenge() then passes, because neither a challenge nor a verifier is present.
An attacker who intercepts an authorization code issued to a public Relying Party can exchange it for the user's access, ID and refresh tokens by replaying the client_id with an arbitrary secret, which is the attack PKCE prevents. Dynamic client registration creates every Relying Party in this mode.
🎖@cveNotify
Lemonldap::NG::Portal versions from 2.23.0 before 2.23.4 for Perl allow a PKCE bypass for public Relying Parties in "PKCE or secret" mode because checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials does not verify the client secret.
With oidcRPMetaDataOptionsRequirePKCE set to 2, the authorization endpoint issues a code even when the request carries no code_challenge, and token() admits the exchange as long as a challenge was stored or an authentication method was returned for the caller. checkEndPointAuthenticationCredentials() skips the secret comparison for a Relying Party marked public and still returns the method deduced from the request, so any Basic or form credential satisfies the secret branch. validatePKCEChallenge() then passes, because neither a challenge nor a verifier is present.
An attacker who intercepts an authorization code issued to a public Relying Party can exchange it for the user's access, ID and refresh tokens by replaying the client_id with an arbitrary secret, which is the attack PKCE prevents. Dynamic client registration creates every Relying Party in this mode.
🎖@cveNotify
GitLab
Version 2.23.4 · LemonLDAP NG / lemonldap-ng · GitLab
Bugs:
🚨 CVE-2026-95811
Lemonldap::NG::Handler versions from 2.0.0 before 2.16.10, from 2.17.0 before 2.21.6, from 2.22.0 before 2.23.4 for Perl allow an equivalent spelling of a path to bypass the locationRules that restrict it.
The handler matches each vhost's locationRules regular expressions against REQUEST_URI, the raw request line, while the web server routes on the path it has already percent-decoded and normalized. A request that percent-encodes a character of the path, inserts dot segments, or doubles a slash therefore reaches the protected resource under a URI that no rule regexp matches, and the vhost's default rule decides access. Deny rules, identity and group conditions, and unprotect and skip rules are bypassed alike.
Only a vhost whose default rule is more permissive than its other rules is affected. An authenticated user then reaches any URL a locationRules regexp was meant to restrict, but gains no more than that default rule already grants.
🎖@cveNotify
Lemonldap::NG::Handler versions from 2.0.0 before 2.16.10, from 2.17.0 before 2.21.6, from 2.22.0 before 2.23.4 for Perl allow an equivalent spelling of a path to bypass the locationRules that restrict it.
The handler matches each vhost's locationRules regular expressions against REQUEST_URI, the raw request line, while the web server routes on the path it has already percent-decoded and normalized. A request that percent-encodes a character of the path, inserts dot segments, or doubles a slash therefore reaches the protected resource under a URI that no rule regexp matches, and the vhost's default rule decides access. Deny rules, identity and group conditions, and unprotect and skip rules are bypassed alike.
Only a vhost whose default rule is more permissive than its other rules is affected. An authenticated user then reaches any URL a locationRules regexp was meant to restrict, but gains no more than that default rule already grants.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-78394
The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.6 does not sanitize a user-supplied destination folder before writing a generated image to disk, allowing users with the Contributor role and above to create directories and write or overwrite image files anywhere the web server can write, including outside the site's document root.
The written file name is always numeric with a fixed image extension, so executable code cannot be planted this way.
🎖@cveNotify
The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.6 does not sanitize a user-supplied destination folder before writing a generated image to disk, allowing users with the Contributor role and above to create directories and write or overwrite image files anywhere the web server can write, including outside the site's document root.
The written file name is always numeric with a fixed image extension, so executable code cannot be planted this way.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Link Library < 7.9.6 - Contributor+ Path Traversal via 'filepath' Parameter
See details on Link Library < 7.9.6 - Contributor+ Path Traversal via 'filepath' Parameter CVE 2026-78394. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-78397
The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.6 does not validate the destination of a user-supplied URL before falling back to an unprotected fetch when its safe request is rejected, allowing unauthenticated visitors to make the site issue requests to hosts on its internal network and to learn from the response whether an internal service answered.
Versions below 7.8.8 are covered by CVE-2025-68600; this entry covers 7.8.8 through 7.9.5, where that fix was incomplete. Exploitation requires the site owner to have published the Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.6's public link submission form with reciprocal-link validation enabled.
🎖@cveNotify
The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.6 does not validate the destination of a user-supplied URL before falling back to an unprotected fetch when its safe request is rejected, allowing unauthenticated visitors to make the site issue requests to hosts on its internal network and to learn from the response whether an internal service answered.
Versions below 7.8.8 are covered by CVE-2025-68600; this entry covers 7.8.8 through 7.9.5, where that fix was incomplete. Exploitation requires the site owner to have published the Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.9.6's public link submission form with reciprocal-link validation enabled.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Link Library < 7.9.6 - Unauthenticated SSRF via Reciprocal Link Validation
See details on Link Library < 7.9.6 - Unauthenticated SSRF via Reciprocal Link Validation CVE 2026-78397. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-93477
Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in ash-project ash allows a user to set the value of a private action argument on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths.
Action arguments declared with public?: false are meant to be set only by trusted server-side code (for example via Ash.Changeset.set_private_argument/3) and must not be settable from end-user input. CVE-2026-55736 fixed the non-bulk changeset path to strip private arguments from user-supplied parameter maps, but the bulk destroy and bulk update paths were not covered.
Ash.Actions.Destroy.Bulk.base_changeset/5 and Ash.Actions.Update.Bulk.base_changeset/5 match every key in the caller-supplied parameter map against all of the action's arguments with no public? check, then apply the matches to the base changeset. A caller who can submit parameters to a bulk destroy or bulk update action (for example through AshJsonApi, AshGraphql, or a controller that forwards request parameters to Ash.bulk_destroy/4 or Ash.bulk_update/4) can therefore set any private argument of that action, including one referenced by an arg(...) template in the action's changes or validations. Depending on how the application uses the argument (for example an acting_user_id driving authorization or record ownership, or audit metadata), this can lead to an integrity violation or privilege escalation.
The fix requires public? in the argument matching on both bulk paths; private arguments remain settable server-side via the :private_arguments option.
This issue affects ash: from 2.17.15 before 3.33.11.
🎖@cveNotify
Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes vulnerability in ash-project ash allows a user to set the value of a private action argument on the bulk destroy and bulk update paths.
Action arguments declared with public?: false are meant to be set only by trusted server-side code (for example via Ash.Changeset.set_private_argument/3) and must not be settable from end-user input. CVE-2026-55736 fixed the non-bulk changeset path to strip private arguments from user-supplied parameter maps, but the bulk destroy and bulk update paths were not covered.
Ash.Actions.Destroy.Bulk.base_changeset/5 and Ash.Actions.Update.Bulk.base_changeset/5 match every key in the caller-supplied parameter map against all of the action's arguments with no public? check, then apply the matches to the base changeset. A caller who can submit parameters to a bulk destroy or bulk update action (for example through AshJsonApi, AshGraphql, or a controller that forwards request parameters to Ash.bulk_destroy/4 or Ash.bulk_update/4) can therefore set any private argument of that action, including one referenced by an arg(...) template in the action's changes or validations. Depending on how the application uses the argument (for example an acting_user_id driving authorization or record ownership, or audit metadata), this can lead to an integrity violation or privilege escalation.
The fix requires public? in the argument matching on both bulk paths; private arguments remain settable server-side via the :private_arguments option.
This issue affects ash: from 2.17.15 before 3.33.11.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-97846
Keycloak provides a feature called mTLS holder-of-key binding which ensures that a token can only be used by the client that originally requested it by binding it to their digital certificate. A flaw was discovered where the new Standard Token Exchange V2 feature does not check for this certificate. This allows an attacker with stolen client credentials to obtain a standard, unrestricted token that bypasses these security protections.
🎖@cveNotify
Keycloak provides a feature called mTLS holder-of-key binding which ensures that a token can only be used by the client that originally requested it by binding it to their digital certificate. A flaw was discovered where the new Standard Token Exchange V2 feature does not check for this certificate. This allows an attacker with stolen client credentials to obtain a standard, unrestricted token that bypasses these security protections.
🎖@cveNotify
Redhat
CVE-2026-97846 - Red Hat Customer Portal
CVE Details App
🚨 CVE-2026-96448
A flaw was found in the Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP v2) feature of Keycloak, an identity and access management solution. The issue occurs when the system checks if a delegated administrator has permission to assign a specific role to a user. Because the check does not look inside composite roles to see what other permissions they contain, an administrator with limited rights can assign a role that secretly includes full administrative control. This allows the attacker to gain complete management access over the entire realm.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in the Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP v2) feature of Keycloak, an identity and access management solution. The issue occurs when the system checks if a delegated administrator has permission to assign a specific role to a user. Because the check does not look inside composite roles to see what other permissions they contain, an administrator with limited rights can assign a role that secretly includes full administrative control. This allows the attacker to gain complete management access over the entire realm.
🎖@cveNotify
Redhat
CVE-2026-96448 - Red Hat Customer Portal
CVE Details App
🚨 CVE-2026-6082
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/payment-methods' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/payment-methods' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-6083
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '
/inventory/configuration/pricing-tiers' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '
/inventory/configuration/pricing-tiers' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-6084
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/variants' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/variants' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-6085
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/serial-number-types' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/serial-number-types' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-6086
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/serial-number-types' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/serial-number-types' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-6087
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/categories' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/categories' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-6088
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/categories' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in StockAgile API and management panel. The vulnerability is present on the server side in REST endpoint '/inventory/configuration/categories' that allow the injection and persistence of malicious JavaScript code through parameters such as ‘code’, ‘name’, and other text fields. The scripts that are entered are not filtered or validated correctly before being displayed on the web panel that authenticated users can access. Exploiting this vulnerability could allow a remote, previously authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code.
🎖@cveNotify
www.incibe.es
Stored Cross-Site Scripting in StockAgile by Novadigits technologies
INCIBE has coordinated the disclosure of seven medium-severity vulnerabilities affecting the API and t
🚨 CVE-2026-80514
The wpForo Forum WordPress plugin from 3.0.0 before 3.1.6 does not verify the source of client-supplied IP address headers before using them to key its per-visitor rate limit on paid AI requests, allowing unauthenticated attackers to bypass the limit by spoofing the header and exhaust the site owner's metered AI credits.
🎖@cveNotify
The wpForo Forum WordPress plugin from 3.0.0 before 3.1.6 does not verify the source of client-supplied IP address headers before using them to key its per-visitor rate limit on paid AI requests, allowing unauthenticated attackers to bypass the limit by spoofing the header and exhaust the site owner's metered AI credits.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
wpForo Forum 3.0.0 - 3.1.5 - Unauthenticated AI Credit Exhaustion via IP Rate Limit Bypass
See details on wpForo Forum 3.0.0 - 3.1.5 - Unauthenticated AI Credit Exhaustion via IP Rate Limit Bypass CVE 2026-80514. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-86837
The Bookly WordPress plugin before 28.3 does not properly verify a customer's identity before updating their stored details, allowing unauthenticated attackers who know a customer's primary identifier to overwrite that customer's stored personal information such as name, email and address.
🎖@cveNotify
The Bookly WordPress plugin before 28.3 does not properly verify a customer's identity before updating their stored details, allowing unauthenticated attackers who know a customer's primary identifier to overwrite that customer's stored personal information such as name, email and address.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
Bookly < 28.3 - Unauthenticated Customer PII Update via Verification Bypass
See details on Bookly < 28.3 - Unauthenticated Customer PII Update via Verification Bypass CVE 2026-86837. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.
🚨 CVE-2026-88848
The MasterStudy LMS WordPress plugin from 1.9 before 3.7.50 does not verify that a course a member asks to enrol in is covered by their membership plan, nor that the plan identifier submitted with the request is one they actually hold, allowing any member to enrol themselves into restricted paid courses outside their plan and beyond the number of courses it entitles them to.
🎖@cveNotify
The MasterStudy LMS WordPress plugin from 1.9 before 3.7.50 does not verify that a course a member asks to enrol in is covered by their membership plan, nor that the plan identifier submitted with the request is one they actually hold, allowing any member to enrol themselves into restricted paid courses outside their plan and beyond the number of courses it entitles them to.
🎖@cveNotify
WPScan
MasterStudy LMS 1.9 - < 3.7.50 - Subscriber+ Membership Plan Quota and Category Restriction Bypass
See details on MasterStudy LMS 1.9 - < 3.7.50 - Subscriber+ Membership Plan Quota and Category Restriction Bypass CVE 2026-88848. View the latest Plugin Vulnerabilities on WPScan.