Rejected reason: Unused reservation with no CVE record; removed from tickets/pool during the 2026-11-06 stale-CVE remediation
Rejected reason: Unused reservation with no CVE record; removed from tickets/pool during the 2026-11-06 stale-CVE remediation
The error handling implementation fails to properly sanitize or validate user-supplied input within URL parameters under specific conditions. This allows end-users to manipulate the error messages that are displayed by the application.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can inject arbitrary content into error messages. This enables them to perform social engineering attacks, such as phishing or credential theft, by replacing legitimate error messages with malicious content, misleading users into compromising sensitive information or taking harmful actions.
The error handling implementation fails to properly sanitize or validate user-supplied input within URL parameters under specific conditions. This allows end-users to manipulate the error messages that are displayed by the application.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can inject arbitrary content into error messages. This enables them to perform social engineering attacks, such as phishing or credential theft, by replacing legitimate error messages with malicious content, misleading users into compromising sensitive information or taking harmful actions.
The error handling implementation fails to properly sanitize or validate user-supplied input within URL parameters under specific conditions. This allows end-users to manipulate the error messages that are displayed by the application.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can inject arbitrary content into error messages. This enables them to perform social engineering attacks, such as phishing or credential theft, by replacing legitimate error messages with malicious content, misleading users into compromising sensitive information or taking harmful actions.
The error handling implementation fails to properly sanitize or validate user-supplied input within URL parameters under specific conditions. This allows end-users to manipulate the error messages that are displayed by the application.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can inject arbitrary content into error messages. This enables them to perform social engineering attacks, such as phishing or credential theft, by replacing legitimate error messages with malicious content, misleading users into compromising sensitive information or taking harmful actions.
The error handling implementation fails to properly sanitize or validate user-supplied input within URL parameters under specific conditions. This allows end-users to manipulate the error messages that are displayed by the application.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can inject arbitrary content into error messages. This enables them to perform social engineering attacks, such as phishing or credential theft, by replacing legitimate error messages with malicious content, misleading users into compromising sensitive information or taking harmful actions.
The error handling implementation fails to properly sanitize or validate user-supplied input within URL parameters under specific conditions. This allows end-users to manipulate the error messages that are displayed by the application.
By exploiting this vulnerability, malicious actors can inject arbitrary content into error messages. This enables them to perform social engineering attacks, such as phishing or credential theft, by replacing legitimate error messages with malicious content, misleading users into compromising sensitive information or taking harmful actions.
The product fails to sufficiently validate callback URLs, allowing them to be manipulated with malicious payloads when processed through a weak regular expression or when validation is omitted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a link that appears legitimate but redirects users to an attacker-controlled page. This redirection facilitates phishing attacks, enabling the harvesting of sensitive user information, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data theft.
The product fails to sufficiently validate callback URLs, allowing them to be manipulated with malicious payloads when processed through a weak regular expression or when validation is omitted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a link that appears legitimate but redirects users to an attacker-controlled page. This redirection facilitates phishing attacks, enabling the harvesting of sensitive user information, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data theft.
The product fails to sufficiently validate callback URLs, allowing them to be manipulated with malicious payloads when processed through a weak regular expression or when validation is omitted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a link that appears legitimate but redirects users to an attacker-controlled page. This redirection facilitates phishing attacks, enabling the harvesting of sensitive user information, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data theft.
The product fails to sufficiently validate callback URLs, allowing them to be manipulated with malicious payloads when processed through a weak regular expression or when validation is omitted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a link that appears legitimate but redirects users to an attacker-controlled page. This redirection facilitates phishing attacks, enabling the harvesting of sensitive user information, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data theft.
The product fails to sufficiently validate callback URLs, allowing them to be manipulated with malicious payloads when processed through a weak regular expression or when validation is omitted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a link that appears legitimate but redirects users to an attacker-controlled page. This redirection facilitates phishing attacks, enabling the harvesting of sensitive user information, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data theft.
The product fails to sufficiently validate callback URLs, allowing them to be manipulated with malicious payloads when processed through a weak regular expression or when validation is omitted.
An attacker can exploit this by crafting a link that appears legitimate but redirects users to an attacker-controlled page. This redirection facilitates phishing attacks, enabling the harvesting of sensitive user information, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data theft.
The refresh token grant type in WSO2 products fails to re-validate account status before issuing new access tokens. This weakness allows an attacker to obtain valid access tokens for user accounts even after they have been blocked by the user store, bypassing account lockout mechanisms.
This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to user accounts and their associated resources. Attackers can leverage this to perform actions on behalf of blocked users, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data exfiltration depending on the permissions of the compromised account.
The refresh token grant type in WSO2 products fails to re-validate account status before issuing new access tokens. This weakness allows an attacker to obtain valid access tokens for user accounts even after they have been blocked by the user store, bypassing account lockout mechanisms.
This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to user accounts and their associated resources. Attackers can leverage this to perform actions on behalf of blocked users, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data exfiltration depending on the permissions of the compromised account.
The refresh token grant type in WSO2 products fails to re-validate account status before issuing new access tokens. This weakness allows an attacker to obtain valid access tokens for user accounts even after they have been blocked by the user store, bypassing account lockout mechanisms.
This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to user accounts and their associated resources. Attackers can leverage this to perform actions on behalf of blocked users, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data exfiltration depending on the permissions of the compromised account.
The refresh token grant type in WSO2 products fails to re-validate account status before issuing new access tokens. This weakness allows an attacker to obtain valid access tokens for user accounts even after they have been blocked by the user store, bypassing account lockout mechanisms.
This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to user accounts and their associated resources. Attackers can leverage this to perform actions on behalf of blocked users, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data exfiltration depending on the permissions of the compromised account.
The refresh token grant type in WSO2 products fails to re-validate account status before issuing new access tokens. This weakness allows an attacker to obtain valid access tokens for user accounts even after they have been blocked by the user store, bypassing account lockout mechanisms.
This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to user accounts and their associated resources. Attackers can leverage this to perform actions on behalf of blocked users, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data exfiltration depending on the permissions of the compromised account.
The refresh token grant type in WSO2 products fails to re-validate account status before issuing new access tokens. This weakness allows an attacker to obtain valid access tokens for user accounts even after they have been blocked by the user store, bypassing account lockout mechanisms.
This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to user accounts and their associated resources. Attackers can leverage this to perform actions on behalf of blocked users, potentially leading to privilege escalation or data exfiltration depending on the permissions of the compromised account.
The affected components accept user-supplied input for constructing redirection URLs without enforcing expected validation constraints. This allows an attacker to provide a crafted URL that can redirect users to an arbitrary external domain.
By leveraging this open redirection vulnerability, an attacker can craft a malicious link that, when clicked by a user, redirects them to an attacker-controlled page. This can be used in conjunction with social engineering techniques to execute phishing attacks, aiming to obtain sensitive information or cause other harm.
The affected components accept user-supplied input for constructing redirection URLs without enforcing expected validation constraints. This allows an attacker to provide a crafted URL that can redirect users to an arbitrary external domain.
By leveraging this open redirection vulnerability, an attacker can craft a malicious link that, when clicked by a user, redirects them to an attacker-controlled page. This can be used in conjunction with social engineering techniques to execute phishing attacks, aiming to obtain sensitive information or cause other harm.
The affected components accept user-supplied input for constructing redirection URLs without enforcing expected validation constraints. This allows an attacker to provide a crafted URL that can redirect users to an arbitrary external domain.
By leveraging this open redirection vulnerability, an attacker can craft a malicious link that, when clicked by a user, redirects them to an attacker-controlled page. This can be used in conjunction with social engineering techniques to execute phishing attacks, aiming to obtain sensitive information or cause other harm.
The affected components accept user-supplied input for constructing redirection URLs without enforcing expected validation constraints. This allows an attacker to provide a crafted URL that can redirect users to an arbitrary external domain.
By leveraging this open redirection vulnerability, an attacker can craft a malicious link that, when clicked by a user, redirects them to an attacker-controlled page. This can be used in conjunction with social engineering techniques to execute phishing attacks, aiming to obtain sensitive information or cause other harm.
The affected components accept user-supplied input for constructing redirection URLs without enforcing expected validation constraints. This allows an attacker to provide a crafted URL that can redirect users to an arbitrary external domain.
By leveraging this open redirection vulnerability, an attacker can craft a malicious link that, when clicked by a user, redirects them to an attacker-controlled page. This can be used in conjunction with social engineering techniques to execute phishing attacks, aiming to obtain sensitive information or cause other harm.
The affected components accept user-supplied input for constructing redirection URLs without enforcing expected validation constraints. This allows an attacker to provide a crafted URL that can redirect users to an arbitrary external domain.
By leveraging this open redirection vulnerability, an attacker can craft a malicious link that, when clicked by a user, redirects them to an attacker-controlled page. This can be used in conjunction with social engineering techniques to execute phishing attacks, aiming to obtain sensitive information or cause other harm.
The user search function within the management console fails to properly encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the browser. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts that are then executed by the user's browser in the context of the management console.
Successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect the user's browser to a malicious website, modify the web page's user interface, or extract information from the browser. However, due to the use of the httpOnly flag on sensitive session cookies, session hijacking or similar attacks are prevented.
The user search function within the management console fails to properly encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the browser. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts that are then executed by the user's browser in the context of the management console.
Successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect the user's browser to a malicious website, modify the web page's user interface, or extract information from the browser. However, due to the use of the httpOnly flag on sensitive session cookies, session hijacking or similar attacks are prevented.
The user search function within the management console fails to properly encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the browser. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts that are then executed by the user's browser in the context of the management console.
Successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect the user's browser to a malicious website, modify the web page's user interface, or extract information from the browser. However, due to the use of the httpOnly flag on sensitive session cookies, session hijacking or similar attacks are prevented.
The user search function within the management console fails to properly encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the browser. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts that are then executed by the user's browser in the context of the management console.
Successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect the user's browser to a malicious website, modify the web page's user interface, or extract information from the browser. However, due to the use of the httpOnly flag on sensitive session cookies, session hijacking or similar attacks are prevented.
The user search function within the management console fails to properly encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the browser. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts that are then executed by the user's browser in the context of the management console.
Successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect the user's browser to a malicious website, modify the web page's user interface, or extract information from the browser. However, due to the use of the httpOnly flag on sensitive session cookies, session hijacking or similar attacks are prevented.
The user search function within the management console fails to properly encode user-supplied input before rendering it in the browser. This allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts that are then executed by the user's browser in the context of the management console.
Successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect the user's browser to a malicious website, modify the web page's user interface, or extract information from the browser. However, due to the use of the httpOnly flag on sensitive session cookies, session hijacking or similar attacks are prevented.
The account lock feature fails to correctly enforce account lockouts on the primary user store when users with identical usernames exist in both primary and secondary user stores. This occurs because the lock condition is only applied to the secondary user store account in such scenarios, allowing continued authentication attempts against the primary user store account.
This functional flaw enables brute force attacks. By systematically attempting different passwords against the primary user store account, an attacker can potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or accounts, as the intended account lockout mechanism does not prevent repeated login attempts.
The account lock feature fails to correctly enforce account lockouts on the primary user store when users with identical usernames exist in both primary and secondary user stores. This occurs because the lock condition is only applied to the secondary user store account in such scenarios, allowing continued authentication attempts against the primary user store account.
This functional flaw enables brute force attacks. By systematically attempting different passwords against the primary user store account, an attacker can potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or accounts, as the intended account lockout mechanism does not prevent repeated login attempts.
The account lock feature fails to correctly enforce account lockouts on the primary user store when users with identical usernames exist in both primary and secondary user stores. This occurs because the lock condition is only applied to the secondary user store account in such scenarios, allowing continued authentication attempts against the primary user store account.
This functional flaw enables brute force attacks. By systematically attempting different passwords against the primary user store account, an attacker can potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or accounts, as the intended account lockout mechanism does not prevent repeated login attempts.
The account lock feature fails to correctly enforce account lockouts on the primary user store when users with identical usernames exist in both primary and secondary user stores. This occurs because the lock condition is only applied to the secondary user store account in such scenarios, allowing continued authentication attempts against the primary user store account.
This functional flaw enables brute force attacks. By systematically attempting different passwords against the primary user store account, an attacker can potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or accounts, as the intended account lockout mechanism does not prevent repeated login attempts.
The account lock feature fails to correctly enforce account lockouts on the primary user store when users with identical usernames exist in both primary and secondary user stores. This occurs because the lock condition is only applied to the secondary user store account in such scenarios, allowing continued authentication attempts against the primary user store account.
This functional flaw enables brute force attacks. By systematically attempting different passwords against the primary user store account, an attacker can potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or accounts, as the intended account lockout mechanism does not prevent repeated login attempts.
The account lock feature fails to correctly enforce account lockouts on the primary user store when users with identical usernames exist in both primary and secondary user stores. This occurs because the lock condition is only applied to the secondary user store account in such scenarios, allowing continued authentication attempts against the primary user store account.
This functional flaw enables brute force attacks. By systematically attempting different passwords against the primary user store account, an attacker can potentially gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or accounts, as the intended account lockout mechanism does not prevent repeated login attempts.
The LetterPress WordPress plugin before 2.4.0 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)
The LetterPress WordPress plugin before 2.4.0 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)
The LetterPress WordPress plugin before 2.4.0 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)
The LetterPress WordPress plugin before 2.4.0 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)
The LetterPress WordPress plugin before 2.4.0 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup)
llama.cpp before b3701 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_decode_internal and llama_encode_internal that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to read memory by supplying unvalidated token IDs. Attackers can send integer-array prompts to the llama-server /completion endpoint with IDs outside 0 to n_vocab to read embedding memory out of bounds or crash the process.
llama.cpp before b3701 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_decode_internal and llama_encode_internal that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to read memory by supplying unvalidated token IDs. Attackers can send integer-array prompts to the llama-server /completion endpoint with IDs outside 0 to n_vocab to read embedding memory out of bounds or crash the process.
llama.cpp before b3701 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_decode_internal and llama_encode_internal that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to read memory by supplying unvalidated token IDs. Attackers can send integer-array prompts to the llama-server /completion endpoint with IDs outside 0 to n_vocab to read embedding memory out of bounds or crash the process.
llama.cpp before b2731 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_model_loader that allows attackers to read memory outside the mapped model file via crafted GGUF tensor offsets. Attackers can supply a crafted or truncated GGUF model file with arbitrary 64-bit tensor offsets to crash the process or load adjacent process memory as model weights.
llama.cpp before b2731 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_model_loader that allows attackers to read memory outside the mapped model file via crafted GGUF tensor offsets. Attackers can supply a crafted or truncated GGUF model file with arbitrary 64-bit tensor offsets to crash the process or load adjacent process memory as model weights.
llama.cpp before b2731 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_model_loader that allows attackers to read memory outside the mapped model file via crafted GGUF tensor offsets. Attackers can supply a crafted or truncated GGUF model file with arbitrary 64-bit tensor offsets to crash the process or load adjacent process memory as model weights.
llama.cpp before b2731 contains an out-of-bounds read vulnerability in llama_model_loader that allows attackers to read memory outside the mapped model file via crafted GGUF tensor offsets. Attackers can supply a crafted or truncated GGUF model file with arbitrary 64-bit tensor offsets to crash the process or load adjacent process memory as model weights.