Filtered by vendor
Subscriptions
Total
344468 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2014-3540 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-0114. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2014-0114. CVE abstraction content decisions did not require a second ID. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-0114 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | ||||
| CVE-2014-2970 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-5139. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2014-5139, and has also been used to refer to an unrelated topic that is currently outside the scope of CVE. This unrelated topic is a LibreSSL code change adding functionality for certain process-bifurcation use cases that might arise in future LibreSSL-based applications. There is no CVE ID associated with this LibreSSL code change. As of 20140730, CVE-2014-5139 is an undisclosed vulnerability in a different product, with ongoing vulnerability coordination that had previously used the CVE-2014-2970 ID | ||||
| CVE-2014-125043 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2014-125042 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2014-10000 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: This ID is frequently used as an example of the 2014 CVE-ID syntax change, which allows more than 4 digits in the sequence number. Notes: See references | ||||
| CVE-2014-0194 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2013-6500 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2013-6488 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2013-0328. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2013-0328. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2013-0328 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | ||||
| CVE-2013-6406 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2013-6858. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2013-6858. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2013-6858 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | ||||
| CVE-2013-4186 | 2023-11-07 | 0.0 Low | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2013-1752 | 1 Redhat | 2 Enterprise Linux, Rhel Software Collections | 2023-11-07 | N/A |
| Various versions of Python do not properly restrict readline calls, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a long string, related to (1) httplib - fixed in 2.7.4, 2.6.9, and 3.3.3; (2) ftplib - fixed in 2.7.6, 2.6.9, 3.3.3; (3) imaplib - not yet fixed in 2.7.x, fixed in 2.6.9, 3.3.3; (4) nntplib - fixed in 2.7.6, 2.6.9, 3.3.3; (5) poplib - not yet fixed in 2.7.x, fixed in 2.6.9, 3.3.3; and (6) smtplib - not yet fixed in 2.7.x, fixed in 2.6.9, not yet fixed in 3.3.x. NOTE: this was REJECTed because it is incompatible with CNT1 "Independently Fixable" in the CVE Counting Decisions | ||||
| CVE-2013-1622 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate is not a security issue. Further investigation showed that, because of RFC noncompliance, no version or configuration of the product had the vulnerability previously associated with this ID. Notes: none | ||||
| CVE-2013-0743 | 1 Redhat | 1 Enterprise Linux | 2023-11-07 | N/A |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA at the suggestion of the CVE project team. The candidate had been associated with a correct report of a security problem, but not a problem that is categorized as a vulnerability within CVE. Compromised or unauthorized SSL certificates are not within CVE's scope. Notes: none | ||||
| CVE-2012-6686 | 1 Redhat | 1 Enterprise Linux | 2023-11-07 | N/A |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2013-4357. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2013-4357. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2013-4357 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | ||||
| CVE-2012-5620 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2012-4166 | 1 Redhat | 1 Rhel Extras | 2023-11-07 | N/A |
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2012-4165. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2012-4165. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2012-4165 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | ||||
| CVE-2012-3977 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2012-4930. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2012-4930. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2012-4930 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | ||||
| CVE-2012-3541 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
| CVE-2012-2639 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2011-4940. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2011-4940. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2011-4940 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | ||||
| CVE-2011-0705 | 2023-11-07 | N/A | ||
| DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | ||||
ReportizFlow