Full List

Search

Recent Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-5258 • published on April 1, 2026 A vulnerability was found in Sanster IOPaint 1.5.3. Impacted is the function _get_file of the file iopaint/file_manager/file_manager.py of the component File Manager. Performing a manipulation of the argument filename results in path traversal. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.
• CVE-2026-4748 • published on April 1, 2026 A regression in the way hashes were calculated caused rules containing the address range syntax (x.x.x.x - y.y.y.y) that only differ in the address range(s) involved to be silently dropped as duplicates. Only the first of such rules is actually loaded into pf. Ranges expressed using the address[/mask-bits] syntax were not affected. Some keywords representing actions taken on a packet-matching rule, such as 'log', 'return tll', or 'dnpipe', may suffer from the same issue. It is unlikely that users have such configurations, as these rules would always be redundant. Affected rules are silently ignored, which can lead to unexpected behaviour including over- and underblocking.