Overview 9,190 matches · 533 in Waratek scope · 53 protected · 29 exploited · 11 CISA KEV · 270 public PoC · 43 EPSS ≥ 0.5
9,190matches
533in Waratek scope5.8%
53protected0.6%
29exploited0.3%
11CISA KEV0.1%
270public PoC2.9%
43EPSS ≥ 0.50.5%
Protected by Waratek
53
0.6%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
8
0.1%
No exploit published
472
5.1%
Outside Waratek scope
104
1.1%
Not applicable
8,553
93.1%
Withdrawn CVE
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
53
0.6%
partly blocked
0
0.0%
not blocked
9,137
99.4%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
split by
peak 1,250 / year
19924
Not applicable4
High3
Low1
not blocked4
No public exploit4
19930
19944
Not applicable4
High4
not blocked4
Working exploit published1
No public exploit3
19952
Not applicable2
High2
not blocked2
Working exploit published1
No public exploit1
199612
Not applicable12
High7
Medium4
Low1
not blocked12
Working exploit published5
No public exploit7
199731
Not applicable31
High22
Medium8
Low1
not blocked31
Working exploit published13
No public exploit18
199820
Not applicable20
High11
Medium7
Low2
not blocked20
Working exploit published6
No public exploit14
199922
No exploit published1
Not applicable21
High14
Medium4
Low4
not blocked22
Working exploit published10
No public exploit12
200017
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published1
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable14
High10
Medium5
Low2
not blocked17
Working exploit published6
No public exploit11
200159
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published4
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable53
High32
Medium26
Low1
not blocked59
Exploited2
Working exploit published14
No public exploit43
200243
No exploit published1
Not applicable42
High23
Medium16
Low4
not blocked43
Exploited1
Working exploit published7
No public exploit35
200331
No exploit published1
Not applicable30
High18
Medium12
Low1
not blocked31
Exploited2
Working exploit published5
No public exploit24
200450
Outside Waratek scope2
Not applicable48
High29
Medium18
Low3
not blocked50
Working exploit published15
No public exploit35
200577
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published8
Not applicable68
High34
Medium32
Low11
not blocked77
Working exploit published12
No public exploit65
200690
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published21
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable67
High37
Medium46
Low7
not blocked90
Working exploit published8
No public exploit82
2007134
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published18
Not applicable115
High70
Medium56
Low8
not blocked134
Exploited1
Working exploit published11
No public exploit122
2008147
No exploit published15
Not applicable132
High72
Medium67
Low8
not blocked147
Working exploit published7
No public exploit140
2009172
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published42
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable128
High74
Medium83
Low15
not blocked172
Working exploit published20
No public exploit152
2010203
No exploit published27
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable175
High57
Medium130
Low16
not blocked203
Working exploit published26
No public exploit177
2011169
Protected by Waratek1
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published27
Outside Waratek scope1
Not applicable139
High49
Medium99
Low21
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked168
Working exploit published11
No public exploit158
2012175
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published23
Not applicable151
High45
Medium111
Low19
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked174
Working exploit published16
No public exploit159
2013389
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published40
Outside Waratek scope2
Not applicable345
High62
Medium236
Low91
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked387
Working exploit published5
No public exploit384
2014465
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published32
Outside Waratek scope11
Not applicable420
Critical2
High57
Medium282
Low124
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked463
Exploited5
Working exploit published15
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit444
2015315
No exploit published21
Outside Waratek scope3
Not applicable291
Critical1
High84
Medium148
Low82
not blocked315
Working exploit published4
Proof of concept only1
Forecast only1
No public exploit309
2016387
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published14
Outside Waratek scope3
Not applicable368
Critical17
High98
Medium225
Low47
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked385
Exploited2
Working exploit published3
No public exploit382
2017684
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published13
Outside Waratek scope3
Not applicable666
Critical26
High161
Medium458
Low39
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked682
Exploited3
Working exploit published9
No public exploit672
2018640
Protected by Waratek5
No exploit published22
Outside Waratek scope11
Not applicable602
Critical29
High178
Medium417
Low16
blocked by ARMR today5
not blocked635
Working exploit published7
No public exploit633
2019473
Protected by Waratek3
No exploit published15
Outside Waratek scope6
Not applicable449
Critical23
High125
Medium303
Low22
blocked by ARMR today3
not blocked470
Exploited3
Working exploit published2
No public exploit468
2020565
Protected by Waratek9
Mitigation candidate1
No exploit published12
Outside Waratek scope5
Not applicable538
Critical36
High166
Medium337
Low26
blocked by ARMR today9
not blocked556
Exploited6
Proof of concept only2
Forecast only3
No public exploit554
2021608
Protected by Waratek8
No exploit published5
Outside Waratek scope28
Not applicable567
Critical30
High159
Medium396
Low23
blocked by ARMR today8
not blocked600
Proof of concept only1
Forecast only1
No public exploit606
2022419
No exploit published14
Outside Waratek scope18
Not applicable387
Critical31
High110
Medium268
Low10
not blocked419
Proof of concept only2
No public exploit417
2023415
Protected by Waratek2
No exploit published9
Not applicable404
Critical34
High186
Medium191
Low4
blocked by ARMR today2
not blocked413
Exploited1
Working exploit published2
Proof of concept only1
No public exploit411
2024509
Protected by Waratek4
No exploit published17
Outside Waratek scope6
Not applicable482
Critical42
High154
Medium303
Low10
blocked by ARMR today4
not blocked505
Exploited2
Working exploit published4
Proof of concept only4
No public exploit499
2025609
Protected by Waratek1
No exploit published10
Not applicable598
Critical44
High181
Medium360
Low24
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked608
Proof of concept only2
No public exploit607
20261,250
Protected by Waratek11
No exploit published59
Not applicable1,180
Critical230
High549
Medium441
Low30
blocked by ARMR today11
not blocked1,239
Exploited1
No public exploit1,249
199319961999200220052008201120142017202020232026
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-108178 | Medium | 2026-11-07 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a token to be accepted that should be rejected due to an improperly implemented security check. Under certain conditions, token validation is incomplete, so a token may be accepted for a purpose it was not intended for. |
| CVE-2026-105459 | Medium | 2026-11-07 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to an organization due to improper verification of a cryptographic signature. A token is accepted without its signature being fully verified, which could allow an attacker to join an organization without a valid invitation. |
| CVE-2026-105002 | High | 2026-11-07 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow arbitrary code to be executed by the management service in certain non-default configurations due to improper control of generation of code. Customization content may be evaluated as code, which is only possible where the related feature is enabled and not properly restricted. |
| CVE-2026-82418 | Critical | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Watson Speech Services Cartridge 4.0.0 through 5.4.0 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a use-after-free vulnerability. |
| CVE-2026-19319 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Watson Speech Services Cartridge 4.0.0 through 5.4.0 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to an out-of-bounds read. |
| CVE-2026-18142 | High | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ 9.2.0.0 through 9.2.0.44 LTS, 9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.42 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.26 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.5.1 CD, and 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.0.5 LTS and CD could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service and perform limited memory corruption due to an integer overflow. |
| CVE-2026-17493 | High | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Watson Speech Services Cartridge 4.0.0 through 5.4.0 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to an out-of-bounds read. |
| CVE-2026-16725 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Watson Speech Services Cartridge 4.0.0 through 5.4.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to read arbitrary files from the local filesystem due to path traversal. |
| CVE-2026-11724 | High | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ 9.2.0.0 through 9.2.0.44 LTS, 9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.42 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.26 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.5.1 CD, and 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.0.5 LTS and CD could allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code on a Managed File Transfer agent host due to improper validation of metadata used during script execution. |
| CVE-2026-116376 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to conduct a phishing attack due to an open redirect vulnerability. |
| CVE-2026-11376 | High | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ 9.2.0.0 through 9.2.0.44 LTS, 9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.42 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.26 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.5.1 CD, and 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.0.5 LTS and CD could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code due to an integer overflow when processing subscription requests with crafted buffer size values. |
| CVE-2026-110283 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper validation of user-influenced resource identifiers. |
| CVE-2026-110282 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. |
| CVE-2026-110281 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 improperly validates TLS certificate validation, which could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle technique. |
| CVE-2026-108910 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to missing required cryptographic step. |
| CVE-2026-108838 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a local attacker to cause a denial of service due to uncontrolled resource consumption. |
| CVE-2026-108767 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to conduct HTTP response splitting due to improper neutralization of HTTP headers. |
| CVE-2026-10859 | High | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ 9.2.0.0 through 9.2.0.44 LTS, 9.3.0.0 through 9.3.0.42 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.0.26 LTS, 9.4.0.0 through 9.4.5.1 CD, and 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.0.5 LTS and CD could allow an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code on consumer applications due to insecure deserialization of ObjectMessage payloads. |
| CVE-2026-108588 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to a missing X-Content-Type-Options header allowing MIME type sniffing. |
| CVE-2026-108536 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper restriction of rendered UI layers or frames. |
| CVE-2026-105991 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to a missing Content Security Policy header. |
| CVE-2026-105702 | Medium | 2026-11-04 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to exposure of error messages containing internal implementation details. |
| CVE-2026-93744 | Medium | 2026-10-20 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an unathenticated remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. By sending a specially crafted HTTP request to any URL within the Navigator application prior to authentication, a bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to alter server-side session security state. |
| CVE-2026-8355 | Medium | 2026-10-20 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM ContextForge MCP Gateway 0.1.0 through 1.0.5 is vulnerable to a server-side request Forgery (SSRF) that allows authenticated users with gateway creation privileges to perform arbitrary HTTP POST requests to internal network resources and cloud metadata endpoints. The vulnerability occurs during OAuth-enabled gateway registration when the system fails to validate the oauth_config.token_url parameter. When registering a gateway with OAuth client credentials authentication, an attacker can supply a malicious token_url pointing to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints (AWS IMDSv1, GCP, Azure), or localhost-bound services. The application immediately performs an HTTP POST request to the attacker-controlled URL with form-encoded credentials in the body. If the response cannot be parsed as a valid OAuth token response, up to 256 characters of the response body are reflected back to the attacker in the HTTP 502 error message. This vulnerability bypasses existing SSRF protections that are applied to the gateway.url field but not to OAuth configuration parameters. |
| CVE-2026-82891 | High | 2026-10-20 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.1, and 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to use of a hard-coded cryptographic key. |
| CVE-2026-6930 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. |
| CVE-2026-6719 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. |
| CVE-2026-4418 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.6.0, and 2.3.6.1 is vulnerable to HTML injection. A remotely authenticated attacker could inject malicious HTML code, which when viewed, would be executed in the victim's Web browser within the security context of the hosting site. |
| CVE-2026-4413 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. |
| CVE-2026-4405 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 allows web page cache to be stored locally which can be read by another user on the system. |
| CVE-2026-3628 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 allows information disclosure through exposure of schema suggestions. |
| CVE-2026-3303 | Low | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 uses cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) which could allow an attacker to carry out privileged actions as the domain name is not being limited to only trusted domains. |
| CVE-2026-3295 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.6.0, and 2.3.6.1 is vulnerable to cross site scripting. The web app user‑supplied input is not properly sanitized or HTML‑encoded before being stored and rendered. An authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by entering specially crafted payloads containing malicious JavaScript which are saved within the app and later executed automatically when user views affected pages, resulting in Stored Cross‑Site Scripting (Stored XSS). |
| CVE-2026-3161 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.6.0, and 2.3.6.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. |
| CVE-2026-15661 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 could allow an unauthorized user to inject data into log messages due to improper neutralization of special elements when written to log files. |
| CVE-2026-1510 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Information Disclosure via Heap Inspection. |
| CVE-2026-1501 | Low | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Concert 1.0 through 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Improper Certificate Validation. |
| CVE-2026-14511 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ 9.4.5.0 through 9.4.5.1 could allow an authenticated user to cause a denial of service by sending a specially crafted message that crashes consuming applications. |
| CVE-2026-12727 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause potential process instability due to an off-by-one buffer overflow when processing specially crafted object names. |
| CVE-2026-12670 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service through a specially crafted message that triggers excessive memory operations during character set conversion. |
| CVE-2026-12669 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to trigger a minor out-of-bounds read when sending malformed compressed data, though the data is not disclosed and the request is rejected. |
| CVE-2026-12665 | Critical | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a stack buffer overflow when processing TLS certificates with malformed distinguished names during channel connection establishment. |
| CVE-2026-12660 | Low | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ Web Console could allow an authenticated administrator to write files outside the intended directory due to improper path validation. |
| CVE-2026-12350 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service by sending a specially crafted asynchronous consume request that crashes the queue manager agent process. |
| CVE-2026-12343 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper validation of RFH2 message header fields in queued publish/subscribe operations. |
| CVE-2026-12155 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service by sending specially crafted multicast status messages that trigger a NULL pointer dereference. |
| CVE-2026-12148 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ Operator could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code due to unrestricted Java deserialization in the MQ Classes for Java. |
| CVE-2026-11831 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a limited denial of service and obtain very limited information about process memory layout due to an out-of-bounds read when processing a specially crafted client request. |
| CVE-2026-11829 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper validation of offset values in MQOPEN requests. |
| CVE-2026-11828 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow a remote attacker with queue manager control or man-in-the-middle access on unencrypted channels to cause a denial of service in client applications using asynchronous message consumption due to improper validation of queue name length values. |
| CVE-2026-10743 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service or corrupt memory due to improper validation of buffer sizes in MQOPEN operations. |
| CVE-2026-10574 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code due to a heap buffer overflow when processing MQPUT or MQPUT1 operations with malformed message handle properties. |
| CVE-2026-10572 | High | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM MQ could allow an authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service or potentially execute arbitrary code due to a heap buffer overflow when processing MQPUT operations with malformed message options. |
| CVE-2023-38375 | Medium | 2026-10-19 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Cloud Pak System 2.3.6.0, and 2.3.6.1 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. |
| CVE-2026-17491 | Medium | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 is could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper enforcement of the ChrootDirectory configuration directive. |
| CVE-2026-17488 | Medium | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper authentication. |
| CVE-2026-17275 | Medium | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote attacker to perform unauthorized manipulation of distributed transactions due to improper validation of attacker-supplied transaction identifiers. |
| CVE-2026-17073 | Medium | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information due to missing subtree checks during file handle resolution. |
| CVE-2026-17068 | Medium | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a local attacker to bypass NFS version restrictions due to improper enforcement of the export version flag. |
| CVE-2026-107674 | Medium | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 is vulnerable to a denial of service to Digital Certificate Manager (DCM) for System TLS using applications attempting to create secure network connections. A bad actor could use this to prevent a service from starting or cause it to fallback to non-secure connections. |
| CVE-2026-102917 | High | 2026-10-16 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 is vulnerable to an authenticated attacker elevating their privilege. A bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to perform operations with QSECOFR/Root authority on the system. |
| CVE-2026-96119 | Critical | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information or execute arbitrary code on the system due to improper data sanitization by the HTTP Server Administration web application. |
| CVE-2026-95696 | High | 2026-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 20.0.0.12 through 26.0.0.10 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to an uncaught exception. |
| CVE-2026-95695 | Critical | 2026-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 20.0.0.12 through 26.0.0.10 could allow a remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to incorrect authorization. |
| CVE-2026-93909 | Critical | 2026-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.10 is vulnerable by an authentication bypass vulnerability when samlWeb-2.0 feature is enabled. |
| CVE-2026-93905 | High | 2026-10-13 | Protected by Waratek | No public exploit | IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.10 could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to corrupt the persisted status of batch job instances. |
| CVE-2026-93895 | Critical | 2026-10-13 | No exploit published | No public exploit | IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 20.0.0.12 through 26.0.0.10 could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to bypass access controls configured on gRPC service methods. |
| CVE-2026-93886 | High | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary script code due to improper validation of user-supplied input. |
| CVE-2026-81858 | High | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service and obtain information due to an out-of-bounds read in the File Server. |
| CVE-2026-18343 | Medium | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a local attacker to modify the BOOTP table due to improper authorization. |
| CVE-2026-18318 | Medium | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote attacker to perform brute-force attacks to obtain credentials due to improper authentication. |
| CVE-2026-17487 | Medium | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a remote attacker to enumerate user profiles due to the return of distinct error codes during the sign-on process. |
| CVE-2026-17484 | Medium | 2026-10-13 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow a local attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper access control. |
| CVE-2026-84418 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 can allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to present a forged TLS certificate, intercept the connection, and capture the IAM bearer Authorization header automatically attached by the session adapter. The captured token grants full platform-scope tenant API access, enabling the attacker to read and manipulate the victim's DataStage projects, flows, assets, and pipeline definitions. This is client-side SDK code running on the user's own machine, so exploitation requires an external network interceptor rather than a co-tenant in the shared cluster. |
| CVE-2026-82110 | Critical | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of pathname during a path traversal. |
| CVE-2026-82108 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| CVE-2026-82103 | Critical | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to an exposure of sensitive information to an unauthorized actor. |
| CVE-2026-82101 | Critical | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to a path traversal vulnerability. |
| CVE-2026-82096 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM DataStage on Cloud Pak for Data 5.4.0.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an OS command. |
| CVE-2026-75063 | Medium | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript due to improper output encoding. |
| CVE-2026-75061 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially crafted URL request containing "dot dot" sequences (/../) to write arbitrary files on the system. |
| CVE-2026-19627 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote attacker to read arbitrary host files and overwrite certain application files due to improper validation of file paths. |
| CVE-2026-19622 | Critical | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote attacker to bypass authentication and escalate privileges due to improper validation of sub-requests. |
| CVE-2026-19620 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote attacker to gain unauthorized administrative access due to improper authentication. |
| CVE-2026-18541 | Medium | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an authenticated user to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session. |
| CVE-2026-17475 | High | 2026-10-12 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Planning Analytics 2.0, and 2.1 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to delete folders and applications belonging to other users due to improper functional level access control. |
| CVE-2026-87980 | Medium | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.0, 12.1, and 12.2 could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information due to cleartext storage of sensitive information in logs. |
| CVE-2026-84891 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.0, 12.1, and 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to use of hard-coded credentials. |
| CVE-2026-84875 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.0, 12.1, and 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a buffer overflow. |
| CVE-2026-84290 | Medium | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.0, 12.1, 12.2 is affected by an improper validation of user-supplied pointers in the WfpMonitor kernel driver. Certain METHOD_NEITHER IOCTL handlers dereference user-controlled pointers without adequate probing and exception handling, potentially allowing a privileged local attacker to cause a system crash or perform limited kernel-memory reads. |
| CVE-2026-84278 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 is affected by a command injection vulnerability in the SUID-root ssh_config_wrapper component. An authenticated high-privileged user can inject arbitrary commands through attacker-controlled arguments, resulting in command execution with root privileges. |
| CVE-2026-84276 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2.2 is affected by a denial-of-service vulnerability in the edge-controller. An unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to the edge-controller gRPC service can provide malformed task data that triggers an unchecked type assertion, causing the edge-controller process to terminate unexpectedly. |
| CVE-2026-84275 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 is vulnerable to path traversal in the GIM file-upload functionality. An unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to write arbitrary files to the Collector. |
| CVE-2026-84274 | Medium | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2.2 is affected by a sensitive information exposure vulnerability. During SECRET and API_KEY rotation processing, sensitive credential material is logged at INFO level by the edge-controller/edge-manager components. An authenticated attacker with access to the relevant application or container logs could obtain these credentials and use them to impersonate services or gain unauthorized access to the Guardium control plane. |
| CVE-2026-84272 | Critical | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.1 and 12.2.2 are vulnerable to missing authentication in the edge-controller component. An unauthenticated remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary container images and gain control of managed edge clusters. |
| CVE-2026-84271 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 is vulnerable to a signature verification bypass in the patch installer. An attacker with local access could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code with root privileges. |
| CVE-2026-84250 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 is vulnerable due to weak cryptographic protection and a hard-coded recovery key in the pkcrypto passkey component. A local attacker could exploit this vulnerability to recover the root password and gain root privileges. |
| CVE-2026-84249 | Critical | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2, and 12.2.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary management operations due to missing authentication for critical function. |
| CVE-2026-84247 | High | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to a path traversal vulnerability. |
| CVE-2026-84246 | Critical | 2026-10-08 | Not applicable | No public exploit | IBM Guardium Data Protection 12.0, 12.1, and 12.2 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a buffer overflow. |