Filtered by vendor Siemens
Subscriptions
Total
2182 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-41979 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-23 | 7.1 High |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application does not enforce mandatory authorization on some functionality level at server side. This could allow an authenticated attacker to gain complete access of the application. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41980 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-23 | 3.1 Low |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application do not encrypt the communication in LDAP interface by default. This could allow an authenticated attacker to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41982 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-23 | 4.8 Medium |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application does not have adequate encryption of sensitive information. This could allow an authenticated attacker to gain access of sensitive information. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41983 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-23 | 3.5 Low |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application displays SQL statement in the error messages encountered during the generation of reports using Cockpit tool. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41986 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-22 | 6.4 Medium |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application support insecure TLS 1.0 and 1.1 protocol. An attacker could achieve a man-in-the-middle attack and compromise confidentiality and integrity of data. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41985 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-22 | 2.6 Low |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application does not expire the session without logout. This could allow an attacker to get unauthorized access if the session is left idle. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41984 | 1 Siemens | 4 Opcenter Quality, Smartclient Modules, Soa Audit and 1 more | 2025-10-22 | 2.6 Low |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SmartClient modules Opcenter QL Home (SC) (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Audit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506), SOA Cockpit (All versions >= V13.2 < V2506). The affected application improperly handles error while accessing an inaccessible resource leading to exposing the system applications. | ||||
| CVE-2014-0160 | 13 Broadcom, Canonical, Debian and 10 more | 37 Symantec Messaging Gateway, Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux and 34 more | 2025-10-22 | 7.5 High |
| The (1) TLS and (2) DTLS implementations in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1g do not properly handle Heartbeat Extension packets, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory via crafted packets that trigger a buffer over-read, as demonstrated by reading private keys, related to d1_both.c and t1_lib.c, aka the Heartbleed bug. | ||||
| CVE-2022-22965 | 6 Cisco, Oracle, Redhat and 3 more | 45 Cx Cloud Agent, Commerce Platform, Communications Cloud Native Core Automated Test Suite and 42 more | 2025-10-22 | 9.8 Critical |
| A Spring MVC or Spring WebFlux application running on JDK 9+ may be vulnerable to remote code execution (RCE) via data binding. The specific exploit requires the application to run on Tomcat as a WAR deployment. If the application is deployed as a Spring Boot executable jar, i.e. the default, it is not vulnerable to the exploit. However, the nature of the vulnerability is more general, and there may be other ways to exploit it. | ||||
| CVE-2022-0847 | 7 Fedoraproject, Linux, Netapp and 4 more | 42 Fedora, Linux Kernel, H300e and 39 more | 2025-10-22 | 7.8 High |
| A flaw was found in the way the "flags" member of the new pipe buffer structure was lacking proper initialization in copy_page_to_iter_pipe and push_pipe functions in the Linux kernel and could thus contain stale values. An unprivileged local user could use this flaw to write to pages in the page cache backed by read only files and as such escalate their privileges on the system. | ||||
| CVE-2021-4034 | 7 Canonical, Oracle, Polkit Project and 4 more | 37 Ubuntu Linux, Http Server, Zfs Storage Appliance Kit and 34 more | 2025-10-22 | 7.8 High |
| A local privilege escalation vulnerability was found on polkit's pkexec utility. The pkexec application is a setuid tool designed to allow unprivileged users to run commands as privileged users according predefined policies. The current version of pkexec doesn't handle the calling parameters count correctly and ends trying to execute environment variables as commands. An attacker can leverage this by crafting environment variables in such a way it'll induce pkexec to execute arbitrary code. When successfully executed the attack can cause a local privilege escalation given unprivileged users administrative rights on the target machine. | ||||
| CVE-2021-45046 | 8 Apache, Cvat, Debian and 5 more | 71 Log4j, Computer Vision Annotation Tool, Debian Linux and 68 more | 2025-10-22 | 9 Critical |
| It was found that the fix to address CVE-2021-44228 in Apache Log4j 2.15.0 was incomplete in certain non-default configurations. This could allows attackers with control over Thread Context Map (MDC) input data when the logging configuration uses a non-default Pattern Layout with either a Context Lookup (for example, $${ctx:loginId}) or a Thread Context Map pattern (%X, %mdc, or %MDC) to craft malicious input data using a JNDI Lookup pattern resulting in an information leak and remote code execution in some environments and local code execution in all environments. Log4j 2.16.0 (Java 8) and 2.12.2 (Java 7) fix this issue by removing support for message lookup patterns and disabling JNDI functionality by default. | ||||
| CVE-2021-44228 | 13 Apache, Apple, Bentley and 10 more | 178 Log4j, Xcode, Synchro and 175 more | 2025-10-22 | 10 Critical |
| Apache Log4j2 2.0-beta9 through 2.15.0 (excluding security releases 2.12.2, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1) JNDI features used in configuration, log messages, and parameters do not protect against attacker controlled LDAP and other JNDI related endpoints. An attacker who can control log messages or log message parameters can execute arbitrary code loaded from LDAP servers when message lookup substitution is enabled. From log4j 2.15.0, this behavior has been disabled by default. From version 2.16.0 (along with 2.12.2, 2.12.3, and 2.3.1), this functionality has been completely removed. Note that this vulnerability is specific to log4j-core and does not affect log4net, log4cxx, or other Apache Logging Services projects. | ||||
| CVE-2021-40438 | 11 Apache, Broadcom, Debian and 8 more | 45 Http Server, Brocade Fabric Operating System Firmware, Debian Linux and 42 more | 2025-10-22 | 9 Critical |
| A crafted request uri-path can cause mod_proxy to forward the request to an origin server choosen by the remote user. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server 2.4.48 and earlier. | ||||
| CVE-2019-0708 | 3 Huawei, Microsoft, Siemens | 131 Agile Controller-campus, Agile Controller-campus Firmware, Bh620 V2 and 128 more | 2025-10-22 | 9.8 Critical |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Remote Desktop Services formerly known as Terminal Services when an unauthenticated attacker connects to the target system using RDP and sends specially crafted requests, aka 'Remote Desktop Services Remote Code Execution Vulnerability'. | ||||
| CVE-2017-5689 | 3 Hpe, Intel, Siemens | 71 Proliant Ml10 Gen9 Server, Proliant Ml10 Gen9 Server Firmware, Active Management Technology Firmware and 68 more | 2025-10-22 | 9.8 Critical |
| An unprivileged network attacker could gain system privileges to provisioned Intel manageability SKUs: Intel Active Management Technology (AMT) and Intel Standard Manageability (ISM). An unprivileged local attacker could provision manageability features gaining unprivileged network or local system privileges on Intel manageability SKUs: Intel Active Management Technology (AMT), Intel Standard Manageability (ISM), and Intel Small Business Technology (SBT). | ||||
| CVE-2017-0148 | 2 Microsoft, Siemens | 27 Server Message Block, Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1511 and 24 more | 2025-10-22 | 8.1 High |
| The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, and CVE-2017-0146. | ||||
| CVE-2017-0147 | 2 Microsoft, Siemens | 26 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1511, Windows 10 1607 and 23 more | 2025-10-22 | 7.5 High |
| The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory via a crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Information Disclosure Vulnerability." | ||||
| CVE-2017-0146 | 2 Microsoft, Siemens | 27 Server Message Block, Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1511 and 24 more | 2025-10-22 | 8.8 High |
| The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0145, and CVE-2017-0148. | ||||
| CVE-2017-0145 | 2 Microsoft, Siemens | 27 Server Message Block, Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1511 and 24 more | 2025-10-22 | 8.8 High |
| The SMBv1 server in Microsoft Windows Vista SP2; Windows Server 2008 SP2 and R2 SP1; Windows 7 SP1; Windows 8.1; Windows Server 2012 Gold and R2; Windows RT 8.1; and Windows 10 Gold, 1511, and 1607; and Windows Server 2016 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets, aka "Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability." This vulnerability is different from those described in CVE-2017-0143, CVE-2017-0144, CVE-2017-0146, and CVE-2017-0148. | ||||