Threat Intelligence Database
Comprehensive database of the latest cyber threats affecting organizations worldwide. Filter and search to find specific threat intelligence relevant to your organization.
Stop chasing alerts. Route them.
Start free, then upgrade once to turn Radar into an automated delivery engine for your security stack.
Custom feeds / Automations: email, Slack, webhooks, SIEM/MISP / API access (baseline limits)
API access activates after upgrading in Console -> Billing.
Check if your credentials are on the dark web
Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.
Filter Threats
Narrow down the results by type, severity, or affected countries
Threat Intelligence
Click on any threat for detailed analysis and mitigation recommendations
CVE-2024-49766 is a vulnerability affecting Mapproxy on Windows systems running Python versions earlier than 3.11. It stems from Werkzeug's safe_join() function incorrectly handling UNC paths as absolute due to reliance on os.path.isabs() in these Python versions. This flaw can lead to unsafe path joins and potentially unintended data access. Systems using Python 3.11 or later, or non-Windows platforms, are not affected. A patch is available to remediate this issue. Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 08/13/2026, 17:32:25 UTC Added: 09/18/2026, 01:03:55 UTC |
0 The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger. Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 08/13/2026, 17:32:25 UTC Added: 06/02/2026, 21:43:59 UTC |
0 CVE-2026-27932 is a denial of service vulnerability in the python-joserfc library used by the moto product. It involves an unbounded PBKDF2 iteration count that can cause excessive computational load, leading to service disruption. The issue has been fixed by the SUSE Product Security Team. Affected versions are from 5.0.2 up to but not including 5.1.21_2. The vulnerability has a high severity score of 7.5 and no known exploits in the wild have been reported. Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 08/13/2026, 17:14:37 UTC Added: 09/17/2026, 01:59:48 UTC |
0 ### Summary `joserfc.jwt.decode` accepts attacker-forged HMAC-signed tokens when the caller-supplied verification key is the empty string or `None`. `HMACAlgorithm.sign` and `HMACAlgorithm.verify` in [`src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py:62-70`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py#L62-L70) feed whatever `OctKey.get_op_key(...)` produced into `hmac.new(...)`, and `OctKey.import_key` only emits a `SecurityWarning` when the raw key is shorter than 14 bytes without rejecting zero-length input. Any application whose JWT secret is sourced from an unset environment variable, an unset Redis / DB row, a key finder fallback that returns `""`, or a `Hash.new("")`-style default verifies attacker tokens forged with `HMAC(key=b"", signing_input)` because the attacker trivially reproduces the same digest with no secret knowledge. This is a cross-language sibling of jwt/ruby-jwt GHSA-c32j-vqhx-rx3x / CVE-2026-45363 (HS256/HS384/HS512 verify accepted an empty/nil HMAC key, filed 2026-05-13). ruby-jwt v3.2.0 added an `ensure_valid_key!` precondition that rejects empty keys at both sign and verify entry; joserfc has no equivalent. (The same primitive lives in the deprecated `authlib.jose` module by the same maintainer; filing this advisory against joserfc alongside a separate `authlib` advisory because the codebases are independent shipping artifacts on PyPI.) ### Affected versions `joserfc` (PyPI) `<= 1.6.7` (latest published release reproduces). No patched release. ### Privilege required Unauthenticated. Any HTTP / RPC endpoint that calls `joserfc.jwt.decode` with a verification key sourced from configuration is reachable. The condition that makes the bug observable is operator-side: the configured secret resolves to `""` or `None`. Common patterns that produce this state in production: - `OctKey.import_key(os.environ.get("JWT_SECRET", ""))` - A key finder callable that returns `""` / `None` for an unknown `kid` - Default values like `os.getenv("SECRET") or ""`, `cfg.get("secret", "")` - Database / Redis row lookup that returns `""` for a missing row ### Vulnerable code [`src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py:43-70`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/src/joserfc/_rfc7518/jws_algs.py#L43-L70): ```python class HMACAlgorithm(JWSAlgModel): SHA256 = hashlib.sha256 SHA384 = hashlib.sha384 SHA512 = hashlib.sha512 def __init__(self, sha_type, recommended=False): self.name = f"HS{sha_type}" self.description = f"HMAC using SHA-{sha_type}" self.recommended = recommended self.hash_alg = getattr(self, f"SHA{sha_type}") self.algorithm_security = sha_type def sign(self, msg: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bytes: op_key = key.get_op_key("sign") return hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest() def verify(self, msg: bytes, sig: bytes, key: OctKey) -> bool: op_key = key.get_op_key("verify") v_sig = hmac.new(op_key, msg, self.hash_alg).digest() return hmac.compare_digest(sig, v_sig) ``` [`src/joserfc/_rfc7518/oct_key.py:52-63`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/src/joserfc/_rfc7518/oct_key.py#L52-L63): ```python @classmethod def import_key(cls, value, parameters=None, password=None) -> "OctKey": key: OctKey = super(OctKey, cls).import_key(value, parameters, password) if len(key.raw_value) < 14: # https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-131a/rev-2/final warnings.warn("Key size should be >= 112 bits", SecurityWarning) return key ``` The `< 14` check only warns; `len(key.raw_value) == 0` falls through and is returned to the caller. `HMACAlgorithm.verify` then calls `hmac.compare_digest(sig, hmac.new(b"", signing_input, sha256).digest())`, and Python's `hmac.new(b"", ...)` accepts the empty key. Cross-language sibling of ruby-jwt's fix in [`lib/jwt/jwa/hmac.rb`](https://github.com/authlib/joserfc/blob/1ddca8f3c73ff47e3bc3ac06cb0c08a9535677ec/lib/jwt/jwa/hmac.rb): ```ruby def ensure_valid_key!(key) raise_verify_error!('HMAC key expected to be a String') unless key.is_a?(String) raise_verify_error!('HMAC key cannot be empty') if key.empty? end ``` invoked from both `sign(signing_key:)` and `verify(verification_key:)`. PyJWT landed an equivalent guard in 2.13.0 (`HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key` raises `InvalidKeyError("HMAC key must not be empty.")` for `len(key_bytes) == 0`). firebase/php-jwt rejects empty material in `Key.__construct`. jjwt enforces a 256-bit minimum in `DefaultMacAlgorithm.validateKey`. joserfc has the strongest existing length-warning logic but stops at `< 14 bytes` warn rather than `== 0` reject. ### How an empty `JWT_SECRET` reaches `hmac.new` 1. The application calls `joserfc.jwt.decode(value, key, algorithms=["HS256"])` where `key = OctKey.import_key("")` (or `OctKey.import_key(b"")`, or any custom path t Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 08/13/2026, 17:01:40 UTC Added: 07/02/2026, 22:56:59 UTC |
0 Pallets Click versions 8.3.2 and below contain a command injection vulnerability in the click.edit() function. This flaw allows attackers to execute arbitrary operating system commands from an unprivileged account. A security update addressing this issue is available. The vulnerability has been rated with medium severity. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time. Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 06/22/2026, 14:28:56 UTC Added: 09/17/2026, 01:59:22 UTC |
0 ### Impact A specially crafted argument to the `idna.encode()` function could consume significant resources. This may lead to a denial-of-service. ### Patches The function has been refined to reject such strings without the associated resource consumption in version 3.7. ### Workarounds Domain names cannot exceed 253 characters in length, if this length limit is enforced prior to passing the domain to the `idna.encode()` function it should no longer consume significant resources. This is triggered by arbitrarily large inputs that would not occur in normal usage, but may be passed to the library assuming there is no preliminary input validation by the higher-level application. ### References * https://huntr.com/bounties/93d78d07-d791-4b39-a845-cbfabc44aadb Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 06/11/2024, 00:00:00 UTC Added: 06/02/2026, 21:43:59 UTC |
Showing 1 to 6 of 6 results