Total
115 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-16108 | 1 Redhat | 1 Build Of Keycloak | 2026-09-16 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| A flaw was found in the default-groups REST endpoint and realm representation of Keycloak. This component is responsible for managing groups that are automatically assigned to new users within a realm. The issue allows a delegated administrator with realm-viewing permissions to see the names and identifiers of hidden default groups, even if they lack the specific permissions to view those groups. This can lead to the exposure of sensitive organizational structures or internal group names. | |||||
| CVE-2026-16106 | 1 Redhat | 1 Build Of Keycloak | 2026-09-16 | N/A | 4.9 MEDIUM |
| A flaw was found in the admin REST API of Keycloak, a solution for identity and access management. The issue occurs when a delegated administrator attempts to remove a child role from a composite role. Due to missing authorization checks, an attacker with limited administrative permissions can remove privileged roles they are not authorized to manage, leading to a loss of access for other users and administrators. | |||||
| CVE-2026-86338 | 2026-09-16 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Ash field_policies are documented to protect against filter-based information disclosure: when a field the actor may not see is referenced in a filter, it is replaced with an expression that evaluates to nil, so a filter cannot be used as a yes/no oracle to read a value the actor cannot see. This nilling was applied to attributes but not to calculations or aggregates. A user-supplied filter reference to a calculation or aggregate carries an Ash.Query.Calculation / Ash.Query.Aggregate struct, which the authorizer's reference replacement did not match (it only matched the Ash.Resource.* structs), so the filter ran against the real value. As a result, an actor whose field policies forbid a calculation or aggregate can still filter by it (for example filter(secret_calc == "x") or filter(comment_count == n)) and learn the value from whether rows match — an oracle that recovers field-policy-protected values one probe at a time. Filtering is commonly exposed to lower-privileged actors (for example via AshGraphql or AshJsonApi filter arguments), which is exactly the surface field policies are meant to protect. The fix routes filter references to calculations and aggregates through the same field-policy nilling as attributes. This issue affects ash: from 2.11.0-rc.0 before 3.33.4. | |||||
| CVE-2026-68868 | 1 Apache | 1 Apache-airflow-providers-google | 2026-09-16 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| The Google Cloud Secret Manager secrets backend in Apache Airflow's Google provider never applied the team scope when resolving Connections and Variables: the caller's `team_name` was accepted by the backend but dropped at the internal call boundary, so every lookup resolved against the team-agnostic secret name. In a deployment running multi-team mode with this backend, a task or Dag belonging to one team resolved another team's Connection or Variable, obtaining its credentials in full. No unusual configuration is required beyond enabling multi-team mode and using this backend. Users are advised to upgrade to apache-airflow-providers-google 22.3.0 or later, which builds and applies the team-scoped secret name. | |||||
| CVE-2026-66814 | 1 Microsoft | 4 Sql Server 2017, Sql Server 2019, Sql Server 2022 and 1 more | 2026-09-16 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Insufficient granularity of access control in SQL Server allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network. | |||||
| CVE-2026-77480 | 1 Microsoft | 4 Sql Server 2017, Sql Server 2019, Sql Server 2022 and 1 more | 2026-09-15 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| Insufficient granularity of access control in SQL Server allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network. | |||||
| CVE-2026-62721 | 1 Microsoft | 13 Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809, Windows 10 21h2 and 10 more | 2026-09-14 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| Insufficient granularity of access control in User-Mode Power Service (UMPS) allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54518 | 2026-09-10 | N/A | 7.0 HIGH | ||
| Improper isolation of shared resources within the CPU operation cache on Zen 2-based products could allow an attacker to corrupt instructions executed at a different privilege level, potentially resulting in privilege escalation. | |||||
| CVE-2026-69267 | 2026-09-08 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM | ||
| Insufficient granularity of access control in Windows Connected User Experiences and Telemetry allows an authorized attacker to disclose information locally. | |||||
| CVE-2026-78230 | 2026-09-08 | N/A | N/A | ||
| AshAi exposes Ash read actions to language-model tool calls. The read tool accepts an aggregate result type (min, max, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value. Ash field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A tool caller could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate; min/max in particular return an actual field value. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The tool's existing check only required the field to be public, which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization. The fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource's field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible. This issue affects ash_ai: from 0.1.0 before 1.0.3. | |||||
| CVE-2026-78216 | 2026-09-08 | N/A | N/A | ||
| AshLua exposes Ash read actions to Lua scripts run through an eval action. A read call accepts an operation (list, min, max, first, sum, avg) that builds an ad-hoc Ash.Query.Aggregate over a named field and returns its raw value. Ash field policies redact forbidden fields on returned records (replacing them with %Ash.ForbiddenField{}), but that redaction does not apply to aggregate values. A script could therefore read a field the calling actor's field policies forbid by requesting it as an aggregate instead of as a field. This includes fields that are public? true but restricted per-actor by a field policy, such as sensitive PII. The prior hardening only enforced the exposed-field allow-list (field visibility), which is a separate axis from per-actor field-policy authorization. The fix authorizes the aggregated field against the resource's field policies, so aggregating over a field the actor may not see is refused or scoped to the rows where it is visible. This issue affects ash_lua: from 0.1.0 before 0.2.2. | |||||
| CVE-2026-15431 | 2026-09-08 | N/A | N/A | ||
| A potential security vulnerability has been identified in the HP Support Assistant for versions prior to 9.53.2.0. The vulnerability could potentially allow a local attacker to escalate privileges due to insufficient access controls. | |||||
| CVE-2026-14613 | 1 Redhat | 1 Build Of Keycloak | 2026-08-31 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability was discovered in Keycloak's administrative interface that allows certain administrators to see information about groups they shouldn't have access to. When the new Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP v2) are turned on, an administrator who is allowed to see a specific "role" can also see a list of all groups assigned to that role. The system fails to check if the administrator has permission to see those specific groups. This could allow a restricted administrator to discover "hidden" groups and see their details, such as internal names and custom settings, which might contain sensitive deployment information. | |||||
| CVE-2026-78122 | 2026-08-26 | N/A | 7.4 HIGH | ||
| docker-socket-proxy fails to properly gate read endpoints in the /containers Docker API namespace when the CONTAINERS environment variable is set. Attackers can use GET requests to /containers/{id}/archive, /containers/{id}/export, /containers/{id}/logs, and /containers/{id}/top to read arbitrary files and download entire container filesystems as tar archives. | |||||
| CVE-2026-39363 | 2 Vitejs, Voidzero | 2 Vite, Vite\+ | 2026-08-25 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| Vite is a frontend tooling framework for JavaScript. From 6.0.0 to before 6.4.2, 7.3.2, and 8.0.5, if it is possible to connect to the Vite dev server’s WebSocket without an Origin header, an attacker can invoke fetchModule via the custom WebSocket event vite:invoke and combine file://... with ?raw (or ?inline) to retrieve the contents of arbitrary files on the server as a JavaScript string (e.g., export default "..."). The access control enforced in the HTTP request path (such as server.fs.allow) is not applied to this WebSocket-based execution path. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.4.2, 7.3.2, and 8.0.5. | |||||
| CVE-2026-41326 | 1 Katacontainers | 2 Confidential Containers, Kata Containers | 2026-08-24 | N/A | 8.2 HIGH |
| Kata Containers is an open source project focusing on a standard implementation of lightweight Virtual Machines (VMs) that perform like containers. From v3.4.0 to v3.28.0, an oversight in the CopyFile policy (and perhaps the CopyFile handler) allows untrusted hosts to write to arbitrary locations inside the guest workload image. This can be used to overwrite binaries inside the guest and exfiltrate data from containers; even those running inside CVMs. This vulnerability is fixed in v3.29.0. | |||||
| CVE-2026-40145 | 2026-08-18 | N/A | N/A | ||
| A vulnerability exists in the interaction between a Endpoint Privilege Management (Windows Deployment) support utility and the agent's tamper protection controls. Under certain conditions, the protections applied to the utility process may not be enforced as intended. | |||||
| CVE-2025-31938 | 2026-08-12 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Insufficient granularity of access control in some subsystem for some Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6 Scalable processors with Intel(R) TDX may allow an information disclosure. Authorized adversary with an authenticated user combined with a high complexity attack may enable data exposure. This result may potentially occur via local access when attack requirements are present with special internal knowledge and requires no user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (high), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts. | |||||
| CVE-2026-14615 | 1 Redhat | 1 Build Of Keycloak | 2026-08-11 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| A flaw was found in the Fine-Grained Admin Permissions (FGAP) v2 implementation within Keycloak's administrative services. When FGAP v2 is enabled, the system fails to properly filter child groups based on the caller's specific permissions when requested through a parent group. This allows a delegated administrator to view details of child groups they are not authorized to access directly, including group names, paths, and custom attributes. | |||||
| CVE-2025-20628 | 2026-07-24 | N/A | N/A | ||
| 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. | |||||