NVD や CVE、ほか複数の脅威フィードを束ね、RCE など高リスクな事象を深く追える一覧です。CVSS と EPSS を組み合わせ、Exploit 参照や PoC の有無から悪用しやすさを追跡します。ベンダー修正や緩和策の文脈とあわせて優先度を決め、対応サイクルを短く保ちつつ重要資産を守る支援をします。
| CVE | 説明 | CVSS 最大値 | EPSS（%） | 公開 | 更新 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2002-20002 | The Net::EasyTCP package before 0.15 for Perl always uses Perl's builtin rand(), which is not a strong random number generator, for cryptographic keys. | 5.4 | 0.29% | 2025-01-02 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2002-20001 | The Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol allows remote attackers (from the client side) to send arbitrary numbers that are actually not public keys, and trigger expensive server-side DHE modular-exponentiation calculations, aka a D(HE)at or D(HE)ater attack. The client needs very little CPU resources and network bandwidth. The attack may be more disruptive in cases where a client can require a server to select its largest supported key size. The basic attack scenario is that the client must cla | 7.5 | 23.06% | 2021-11-11 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2002-2438 | TCP firewalls could be circumvented by sending a SYN Packets with other flags (like e.g. RST flag) set, which was not correctly discarded by the Linux TCP stack after firewalling. | 7.5 | 3.74% | 2021-05-18 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2002-2442 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.24% | 2020-11-05 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-2441 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.24% | 2020-11-05 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-2440 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.24% | 2020-11-05 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-2444 | Snoopy before 2.0.0 has a security hole in exec cURL | 9.8 | 1.61% | 2019-10-28 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2002-2439 | Integer overflow in the new[] operator in gcc before 4.8.0 allows attackers to have unspecified impacts. | 7.8 | 0.55% | 2019-10-23 | 2026-06-16 |
| CVE-2002-0390 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2002-0639. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2002-0639. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2002-0639 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | 該当なし | 0.24% | 2019-07-21 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1305 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1304 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1303 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1302 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1301 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1300 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1299 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1298 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-1297 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-0635 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2002-0634 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2002. Notes: none | 該当なし | 0.27% | 2017-05-11 | 2023-11-06 |