Export limit exceeded: 11173 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 11218 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (11218 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-105937 | 1 Apache | 1 Pulsar | 2026-10-22 | N/A |
| Apache Pulsar shadow topics (PIP-180) are topics that read the stored messages of a source topic from that topic's managed ledger. The source topic is selected by setting the reserved topic property PULSAR.SHADOW_SOURCE. The admin REST API accepts this property when creating a non-partitioned or partitioned topic and when updating the properties of an existing topic. On these paths the broker authorizes the caller only against the topic being created or updated. It does not authorize the caller against the source topic named in the property. The existing authorization for shadow topic configuration (the SHADOW_TOPIC topic policy on the source topic) is applied only to the source-side shadow topics admin API, not to these paths. As a result, an authenticated user who is allowed to create topics or update topic properties in one tenant can bind a topic in that tenant to a persistent topic in any other tenant. With the default authorization provider, these operations require the tenant admin role for the user's own tenant. The user does not need any permission on the source topic, its namespace or its tenant. This impact analysis assumes that Pulsar has been configured with the default authorization provider. For custom authorization providers, the impact could be different. The user can then consume from the shadow topic, using only permissions on their own topic, and receive retained messages that were published to the source topic in the other tenant. Exposure is limited to messages that are still retained and readable in the source topic's ledgers; messages protected with client-side end-to-end encryption cannot be decrypted without the encryption keys. A producer on the shadow topic can also register a new schema version under the source topic's schema, subject to the schema compatibility settings; existing schema versions are not replaced. In addition, the shadow topic's managed ledger applies its own retention, trimming, offloading and deletion to the source topic's ledgers. This can permanently delete the source topic's ledger data from BookKeeper and from tiered storage, regardless of the source topic's own subscriptions and retention policy, including messages that have not yet been acknowledged. Deleting the shadow topic can also delete the source topic's ledgers. This data loss can also affect shadow topics that were configured intentionally by administrators. This issue affects Apache Pulsar versions from 3.0.0 before 4.0.14 and from 4.1.0 before 4.2.5. Apache Pulsar 2.x releases do not contain the shadow topic implementation. - 4.0.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.0.14. - 4.1.x and 4.2.x version users should upgrade to at least 4.2.5. Users operating versions prior to those listed above should upgrade to the aforementioned patched versions or newer versions. The currently supported Apache Pulsar release lines are 4.0.x and 5.0.x. The supported versions schedule is available at https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/. In the fixed versions, shadow topics are disabled by default and are controlled by the new broker configuration setting enableShadowTopics (default false). While it is disabled, the broker rejects creating shadow topics, setting the PULSAR.SHADOW_SOURCE property, and loading or replicating to existing shadow topics. Deployments that use shadow topics must set enableShadowTopics=true in the broker configuration of all brokers after upgrading; otherwise existing shadow topics will not be loaded. When shadow topics are enabled, binding a shadow topic to a source topic in a different tenant requires the superuser role. The fixed versions also prevent a shadow topic from deleting or trimming the ledgers and offloaded data of its source topic. Affected versions provide no configuration option to disable shadow topics. Users who cannot upgrade immediately can reduce exposure by granting the tenant admin role only to trusted principals. | ||||
| CVE-2026-106489 | 2 Backstage, Linuxfoundation | 4 Backstage, Plugin-techdocs-backend, Backstage and 1 more | 2026-10-22 | 6.5 Medium |
| Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Prior to 2.2.4, the @backstage/plugin-techdocs-backend package is affected by improper authorization enforcement for techdocs static content. An authenticated user with access to one TechDocs documentation site could craft a URL able to read documentation belonging to a different entity. This only affects deployments using the external TechDocs builder with an external storage provider (S3, GCS, etc.) and the permission framework enabled. Instances that do not use the permission framework are unaffected, since TechDocs content is visible to all authenticated users by design. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.4. | ||||
| CVE-2026-96386 | 1 Drupal | 1 Smart Content | 2026-10-22 | 5.4 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Smart Content allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects Smart Content versions: from 0.0.0 to 3.2.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-96380 | 1 Drupal | 1 Css Usage Analyzer | 2026-10-22 | 5.4 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal CSS Usage Analyzer allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects CSS Usage Analyzer versions: from 1.0.0 to 1.0.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84913 | 1 Drupal | 1 Ai Translate | 2026-10-22 | 4.6 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal AI Translate allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects AI Translate versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.3.2, from 1.4.0 to 1.4.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84912 | 1 Drupal | 1 Artificial Intelligence | 2026-10-22 | 4.6 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal AI (Artificial Intelligence) allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects AI (Artificial Intelligence) versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.3.13, from 1.4.0 to 1.4.8. | ||||
| CVE-2026-84910 | 1 Drupal | 1 Advanced Search | 2026-10-22 | 4.2 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Drupal Advanced Search allows Forceful Browsing. This issue affects Advanced Search versions: from 0.0.0 to 2.4.5. | ||||
| CVE-2026-76294 | 1 Splunk | 1 Splunk Enterprise | 2026-10-22 | 4.3 Medium |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.4, 10.2.8, 10.0.11, and 9.4.16, a user who does not hold the "admin" or "power" Splunk roles could move field extractions or field transformations to apps for which the user does not have read access. The vulnerability is possible because the Representational State Transfer (REST) API does not validate destination app access before it processes field extraction and field transformation move operations. For more information see Use the Field extractions page (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/manage-knowledge-objects/knowledge-management-manual/10.6/use-the-settings-pages-for-field-extractions-in-splunk-web/use-the-field-extractions-page) and Manage knowledge object permissions (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/manage-knowledge-objects/knowledge-management-manual/10.6/get-started-with-knowledge-objects/manage-knowledge-object-permissions) in the Splunk documentation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-76292 | 1 Splunk | 2 Splunk Enterprise, Splunk Secure Gateway | 2026-10-22 | 6.5 Medium |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.4, 10.2.8, 10.0.11, and 9.4.16, and Splunk Secure Gateway versions below 3.10.12, 3.9.26, and 3.8.73, a low-privileged user that does not hold the "admin" Splunk role or the "sc_admin" Splunk Secure Gateway role could read mobile alert notification data for other users through Splunk Secure Gateway App Key Value Store (KV Store) Representational State Transfer (REST) API endpoints. The vulnerability is possible because the affected Splunk Secure Gateway App Key Value Store collections do not enforce user-level authorization for read requests. For more information see About the app key value store (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/admin-manual/10.2/administer-the-app-key-value-store/about-the-app-key-value-store) and About configuring role-based user access (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-enterprise/administer/manage-users-and-security/10.2/manage-splunk-platform-users-and-roles/about-configuring-role-based-user-access) in the Splunk documentation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-109931 | 1 Wordpress-extensions | 1 Infility Global | 2026-10-22 | 3.7 Low |
| The Infility Global WordPress plugin before 2.16.25 does not perform any authorisation or nonce check on an AJAX action available to unauthenticated users, allowing any visitor to overwrite a machine-translation configuration value belonging to a companion Infility Global WordPress plugin before 2.16.25. | ||||
| CVE-2026-111764 | 1 A2aproject | 1 A2a-java | 2026-10-22 | 7.5 High |
| A2A Java SDK is the official Java SDK for the Agent2Agent (A2A) Protocol. Prior to 1.3.0.Final, the default InMemoryTaskStore configuration performs no authorization on task reads: the no-argument constructor sets authorizationProvider to null, and InMemoryTaskStore.get(String taskId) returns the stored task without checking the caller or owner. Authorization depends on supplying a TaskAuthorizationProvider and routing requests through AuthorizationRequestHandlerDecorator, whether installed through CDI or explicitly by the application. Default store wiring and manually constructed DefaultRequestHandler.builder().build() handlers, including integrations such as Spring, leave task reads unprotected when no effective authorization-provider and decorator check is installed. In a multi-caller deployment using the default configuration, a caller who knows or guesses another caller's task ID can retrieve the task status, context ID, message history, and artifacts. The default/reference transport endpoints do not enforce authentication, so the task-read disclosure is reachable by an unauthenticated caller rather than requiring a privileged account. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.0.Final. | ||||
| CVE-2026-110893 | 3 Brainstorm Force, Brainstormforce, Wordpress-extensions | 3 Suredash, Suredash, Suredash | 2026-10-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Brainstorm Force SureDash suredash allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects SureDash: from n/a through 1.12.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-59229 | 1 Apache | 1 Iotdb | 2026-10-22 | N/A |
| The Legacy Pipe receiver protocol (handshake / sendPipeData) uses a hardcoded SUPER_USER (root) identity when executing data loading and deletion operations. A user with only SYSTEM-level privileges (such as USE_PIPE or MAINTAIN) who does NOT have WRITE_DATA or DELETE_DATA permissions on target databases can send specially crafted PipeData messages through the Legacy Pipe API, resulting in data loading/deletion operations executed as root — effectively bypassing IoTDB's permission model entirely. This issue affects Apache IoTDB: from 2.0.0 before 2.0.11. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.0.11, which fixes the issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112218 | 2 Ahmad, Wordpress-extensions | 2 Majestic Support, Majestic Support | 2026-10-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Ahmad Majestic Support majestic-support allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Majestic Support: from n/a through 1.2.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114180 | 2 Wordpress-extensions, Wpmet | 2 Metform, Metform | 2026-10-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in Wpmet Metform metform allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Metform: from n/a through 4.3.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-112843 | 2 Wordpress-extensions, Wpchill | 2 Strong Testimonials, Strong Testimonials | 2026-10-22 | 4.3 Medium |
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in WP Chill Strong Testimonials strong-testimonials allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Strong Testimonials: from n/a through 3.3.14. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114699 | 2026-10-22 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in yoomoney ЮKassa для WooCommerce yookassa allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects ЮKassa для WooCommerce: from n/a through 2.17.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114696 | 2026-10-22 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in miniOrange Page Restriction WordPress (WP) page-and-post-restriction allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Page Restriction WordPress (WP): from n/a through 1.6.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114182 | 2026-10-22 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in IdeaBox Creations PowerPack Addons for Elementor powerpack-lite-for-elementor allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects PowerPack Addons for Elementor: from n/a through 3.1.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-114176 | 2026-10-22 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| Missing Authorization vulnerability in DigitalME eRoom eroom-zoom-meetings-webinar allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects eRoom: from n/a through 1.7.1. | ||||