| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Stack-based buffer overflow in Active Directory Federation Services allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network. |
| Loop with unreachable exit condition ('infinite loop') in Active Directory Federation Services (AD FS) allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network. |
| Stack-based buffer overflow in Active Directory Federation Services allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in .NET allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature over a network. |
| Loop with unreachable exit condition ('infinite loop') in Azure Active Directory allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network. |
| Deserialization of untrusted data in Azure Active Directory allows an unauthorized attacker to deny service over a network. |
| Path traversal on Windows in Apache MINA SSHD component sshd-git. Apache MINA SSHD is a Java library for client-side and server-side SSH.
A git server implemented with Apache MINA SSHD component sshd-git and running on Windows could allow an authenticated remote user access to git repositories outside of the configured server-side root directory. The path validation applied for CVE-2026-48827 in Apache MINA SSHD 2.18.0 and 3.0.0-M4 was partly ineffective for Servers running on Windows.
Applications are affected if they use org.apache.sshd:sshd-git to implement a git server and run on Windows. Applications not using sshd-git or not running on Windows are not affected.
Users are advised to upgrade affected applications to Apache MINA SSHD 2.19.0, which fixes the issue.
The issue also is present in the pre-release milestones 3.0.0-M1 to 3.0.0-M4 for a new upcoming new major version 3.0.0. Again, applications are affected only if they use sshd-git and run on Windows. Upgrade affected applications to 3.0.0-M5. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 Langflow 1.9.0 could allow server-side request forgery (SSRF) due to insecure default configuration and incomplete enforcement of the SSRF protection mechanism. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 allows authenticated users to escalate privileges to superuser by directly manipulating the database, execute arbitrary system commands, and achieve full system compromise with Langflow service permissions. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 Langflow versions up to 1.9.2 (commit 94981c443d4918517b9e8163d70fc598dc33a32d) contain a code injection vulnerability in the Policies component's ToolGuard integration that bypasses the allow_custom_components=false security control. The vulnerability exists because the validation mechanism only checks the main component source code in node_template["code"]["value"] but fails to validate dynamic CodeInput fields that store generated ToolGuard Python files. Attackers can embed malicious Python code in these unvalidated dynamic fields, which are persisted in Flow.data and later executed server-side when a guarded tool is invoked through the ToolGuard runtime. This allows authenticated users with flow creation privileges to achieve arbitrary Python code execution on the backend despite custom component restrictions. The vulnerability can be escalated through cross-tenant flow manipulation via the agentic MCP update_flow_component_field tool, which accepts attacker-controlled user_id parameters, enabling attackers to inject malicious code into victim users' flows. When combined with publicly accessible flows and specific misconfigurations (AUTO_LOGIN=true, NEW_USER_IS_ACTIVE=true), the attack can be conducted with reduced authentication requirements. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.0 allows authenticated users to override component parameters at runtime via the API. A critical security flaw exists in the parameter filtering mechanism within the `apply_tweaks()` function. |
| IBM Langflow OSS 1.0.0 through 1.10.1 can allow an authenticated attacker to exploit the SaveToFile component to read and modify another user's uploaded files by specifying absolute paths pointing to victim storage locations. In append mode, the attacker's workflow reads victim file contents, appends attacker-controlled data, and uploads a copy containing victim data to the attacker's namespace (confidentiality breach). In overwrite mode, the attacker can replace victim file contents with arbitrary data (integrity breach). This breaks the storage ownership boundary between users. |
| Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Windows Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Windows Storage Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Streaming Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Kernel-Mode Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Distributed File System (DFS) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
