聚合 NVD、CVE 及多源情报，深度解析 RCE 等高危风险。系统集成 CVSS 与 EPSS 模型，动态追踪 Exploit 资源与 PoC 公开状态，研判可利用性。结合官方补丁与修复方案，优化漏洞管理优先级，缩短响应周期，保障资产安全。
分配机构（CNA / 来源）：[email protected] 移除此筛选
| CVE | 描述 | 最高 CVSS | EPSS % | 公开时间 | 更新时间 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-3601 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. OpenSSL does not class this issue as a security vulnerability. The trusted CA store should not contain anything that the user does not trust to issue other certificates. Notes: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/5236#issuecomment-119646061 | 无 | 0.04% | 2022-07-29 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2025-69418 | Issue summary: When using the low-level OCB API directly with AES-NI or<br>other hardware-accelerated code paths, inputs whose length is not a multiple<br>of 16 bytes can leave the final partial block unencrypted and unauthenticated.<br><br>Impact summary: The trailing 1-15 bytes of a message may be exposed in<br>cleartext on encryption and are not covered by the authentication tag,<br>allowing an attacker to read or tamper with those bytes without detection.<br><br>The low-level OCB encrypt and | 4.0 | 0.11% | 2026-01-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-22795 | Issue summary: An invalid or NULL pointer dereference can happen in an application processing a malformed PKCS#12 file. Impact summary: An application processing a malformed PKCS#12 file can be caused to dereference an invalid or NULL pointer on memory read, resulting in a Denial of Service. A type confusion vulnerability exists in PKCS#12 parsing code where an ASN1_TYPE union member is accessed without first validating the type, causing an invalid pointer read. The location is constrained to | 5.5 | 0.14% | 2026-01-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-68160 | Issue summary: Writing large, newline-free data into a BIO chain using the line-buffering filter where the next BIO performs short writes can trigger a heap-based out-of-bounds write. Impact summary: This out-of-bounds write can cause memory corruption which typically results in a crash, leading to Denial of Service for an application. The line-buffering BIO filter (BIO_f_linebuffer) is not used by default in TLS/SSL data paths. In OpenSSL command-line applications, it is typically only pushed | 4.7 | 0.15% | 2026-01-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-42771 | Issue summary: When the X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_email is called by an application to validate a crafted e-mail address, such as during S/MIME message validation, an out of bounds read can happen. Impact summary: This out of bounds read will not directly exfiltrate the data read to the attacker so the most likely result is a crash and a Denial of Service. An internal helper function called from X509_VERIFY_PARAM_[set|add]_email() used a wrong length when validating the local part of an email add | 6.2 | 0.16% | 2026-06-09 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2025-15469 | Issue summary: The 'openssl dgst' command-line tool silently truncates input data to 16MB when using one-shot signing algorithms and reports success instead of an error. Impact summary: A user signing or verifying files larger than 16MB with one-shot algorithms (such as Ed25519, Ed448, or ML-DSA) may believe the entire file is authenticated while trailing data beyond 16MB remains unauthenticated. When the 'openssl dgst' command is used with algorithms that only support one-shot signing (Ed2551 | 5.5 | 0.18% | 2026-01-27 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-34181 | Issue Summary: The PKCS#12 file processing fails to perform sufficient input validation for files that use Password-Based Message Authentication Code 1 (PBMAC1) integrity mechanism allowing a certificate and private key forgery. Impact Summary: An attacker impersonating a user can cause a service reading PKCS#12 files to accept forged certificates and private keys with a 1 in 256 probability. If a service accepting PKCS#12 files is using passwords for authenticating the received files, the att | 7.4 | 0.19% | 2026-06-09 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-45446 | Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not e | 4.8 | 0.21% | 2026-06-09 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-34182 | Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises. Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity validation for a given message. In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing AuthEnvelopedData with the ciph | 9.1 | 0.22% | 2026-06-09 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-35188 | Issue summary: A malicious server can exploit TLS OCSP stapling by delivering a crafted response through the status_request extension, triggering a double-free in the client's certificate verification path. Impact summary: Successful exploitation allows an attacker to corrupt heap memory via a double-free, potentially leading to a Denial of Service or possibly an attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behavior. If OCSP stapling is enabled and the TLS client connects to a malicio | 5.0 | 0.22% | 2026-06-09 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2026-31789 | Issue summary: Converting an excessively large OCTET STRING value to a hexadecimal string leads to a heap buffer overflow on 32 bit platforms. Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly an attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behavior. If an attacker can supply a crafted X.509 certificate with an excessively large OCTET STRING value in extensions such as the Subject Key Identifier (SKID) or Authority Key Identifier (AKID) which are being converted t | 9.8 | 0.22% | 2026-04-07 | 2026-06-17 |
| CVE-2020-1974 | 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 2020. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2021-02-15 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2020-1973 | 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 2020. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2021-02-15 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2020-1972 | 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 2020. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2021-02-15 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2020-1970 | 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 2020. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2021-02-15 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2020-1969 | 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 2020. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2021-02-15 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2020-1966 | 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 2020. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2021-02-15 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2019-1564 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during [2019]. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2020-09-10 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2019-1562 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during [2019]. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2020-09-10 | 2023-11-06 |
| CVE-2019-1561 | Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during [2019]. Notes: none | 无 | 0.24% | 2020-09-10 | 2023-11-06 |