Aggregating NVD, CVE, and multi-source threat feeds, this list provides deep analysis of high-risk threats such as RCE. By integrating CVSS and EPSS models, the system dynamically tracks Exp (Exploit) resources and PoC availability to accurately assess Exploitability. Combined with official Patches and remediation strategies, it helps prioritize Vulnerability Management workflows, significantly shortening response cycles and securing your critical assets.
Assigner (CNA / source)：[email protected] Remove this filter
| CVE | Description | Max CVSS | EPSS % | Published | Updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-12198 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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 Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA.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: Based on the analysis by MITRE and review of community feedback, the reported conditions represent expected and intentional behavior within dnsmasq's documented design, rather than security vulnerabilities. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-10-26 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2025-2724 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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 Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA.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: The code maintainer explains that "the only way to get an object of type GsfMSOleSortingKey is via gsf_msole_sorting_key_new which adds that extra zero element". | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-03-24 | 2025-04-22 |
| CVE-2025-2720 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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 Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA.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: According to the code maintainer the call of the POC is invalid because the buffer pointed to by "data" must have "len" valid bytes. The docs were updated to make that clear. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-03-24 | 2025-03-27 |
| CVE-2025-8734 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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 Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA.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: Additional analysis indicates that the files referenced in the stack trace do not exist in Bison. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-08-08 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2025-8733 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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 Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA.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: Additional analysis indicates that the files referenced in the stack trace do not exist in Bison. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-08-08 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2025-2723 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The code maintainer explains that "[the] call is invalid [as] the buffer pointed to by "data" must have "len" valid bytes." The documentation was fixed to make that clear. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-03-24 | 2025-04-22 |
| CVE-2025-2722 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The code maintainer explains that "[the] call is invalid [because] p_n_param is an input-output parameter indicating how big an array has already been allocated. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-03-24 | 2025-04-22 |
| CVE-2025-2721 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The code maintainer explains that "[the] call is invalid [as] the buffer pointed to by "data" must have "len" valid bytes." The documentation was fixed to make that clear. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-03-24 | 2025-04-22 |
| CVE-2025-12200 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: Based on the analysis by MITRE and review of community feedback, the reported conditions represent expected and intentional behavior within dnsmasq's documented design, rather than security vulnerabilities. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-10-26 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2025-12199 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: Based on the analysis by MITRE and review of community feedback, the reported conditions represent expected and intentional behavior within dnsmasq's documented design, rather than security vulnerabilities. | N/A | 0.01% | 2025-10-26 | 2025-11-03 |
| CVE-2025-15447 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The vendor mentioned in the original disclosure filed a report that this issue affects a different vendor. The researcher was not able to provide a proof for his disputed claim which is why the CNA decided to revoke the whole entry. | N/A | 0.03% | 2026-01-04 | 2026-02-02 |
| CVE-2025-15446 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The vendor mentioned in the original disclosure filed a report that this issue affects a different vendor. The researcher was not able to provide a proof for his disputed claim which is why the CNA decided to revoke the whole entry. | N/A | 0.03% | 2026-01-04 | 2026-02-02 |
| CVE-2025-15427 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The vendor mentioned in the original disclosure filed a report that this issue affects a different vendor. The researcher was not able to provide a proof for his disputed claim which is why the CNA decided to revoke the whole entry. | N/A | 0.03% | 2026-01-01 | 2026-02-02 |
| CVE-2023-1632 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: Vendor identified that the vulnerability does not exist within the product, but merely with this particular on premise customer's implementation. | N/A | 0.04% | 2023-03-25 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2022-3527 | Rejected reason: 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. | N/A | 0.04% | 2022-10-16 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2022-1072 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2022-26254. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2022-26254. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2022-26254 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | N/A | 0.04% | 2022-03-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2021-4243 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2021-32850. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2021-32850. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2021-32850 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | N/A | 0.04% | 2022-12-12 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2020-36643 | Rejected reason: 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. | N/A | 0.04% | 2023-01-06 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2014-125064 | Rejected reason: 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. | N/A | 0.04% | 2023-01-07 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2024-3205 | Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** 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: The maintainer identified an error in the libyaml fuzzers. It is not possible to reproduce nor exploit the issue. | N/A | 0.04% | 2024-04-02 | 2024-05-27 |