Vulnerabilities
Summary — last 7 days
New vulnerabilities3,333▲ 343 vs. last week
Critical / high1,493▲ 121 vs. last week
New active exploitation (KEV)7▼ 3 vs. last week
Unscored (no CVSS)592▲ 117 vs. last week
19 results, sorted by published date (most recent first)
| CVE | Status | Severity | EPSS | Active exploitation | Affected technologies | Published ▼ | Modified | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.4) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently restrict which account a certificate could be assigned to. This could allow an attacker to associate a certificate with another user's account, affecting the confidentiality and integrity of that account's encrypted mail and, where certificate-based login is… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Medium (5.3) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | A resource exhaustion vulnerability in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly trigger a comparatively expensive server-side operation, causing a partial denial of service. | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Medium (6.5) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | An authorization check in the large file exchange feature of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not correctly establish that the requesting user was a party to the package being requested. An authenticated user of that optional feature could read the subject, message body, and attachments of packages they neither… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Medium (6.6) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | On a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway cluster with database replication enabled, a party trusted by the cluster could submit a crafted serialized object that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing code execution as the gateway service account. Replication is disabled by default, and… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway rejected certain configuration settings, but its validation did not recognize every form in which they could be supplied. An authenticated administrator could potentially use an unrecognized form to have a file of their choosing written to the gateway and executed, resulting in code… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not sufficiently validate the content of an uploaded backup, and allowed an administrator to influence how the application loaded it. An authenticated administrator could potentially use this to execute arbitrary code on the gateway as the underlying service account. | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.5) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | An identity-verification weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed the gateway to act on the Kiteworks platform on behalf of a user it had not authenticated, and to provision a platform account for an identity it did not already know. A remote, unauthenticated sender could potentially exploit this to… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | An XML parser used by Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not restrict external entity references. Where an optional, non-default message-processing feature is enabled, a remote and unauthenticated sender could potentially use a crafted message to read files accessible to the gateway service account, including… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | -A weakness could have allowed an authenticated Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrator to write a file outside its intended location and cause the application to execute it, potentially resulting in remote code execution as the underlying service account. | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | An authenticated administrator of Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could submit a crafted serialized object to a cluster management interface that was deserialized without sufficient validation, potentially allowing arbitrary code execution in the context of the gateway service account. Exploitation requires an… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.1) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Improper authentication in a Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway administrative service. An administrative service in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway did not consistently enforce administrator authentication, so the required password check could be bypassed. An attacker who referenced a valid administrator account… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.1) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.1) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.1) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.1) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway allowed an authenticated administrator to import configuration whose contents were not sufficiently validated before being processed. A crafted submission could potentially allow arbitrary… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | Critical (9.1) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Unsafe Reflection and does not sufficiently restrict the code that the mail-processing pipeline could load from an imported rule configuration. An authenticated administrator with mail-rule configuration privileges could cause the gateway to load… | |
| Awaiting Analysis | High (7.2) | — | — | Kiteworks Email Protection GatewayAI | 9/30/2026 | 10/1/2026 | Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to a path traversal weakness in an administrative import function allowed an authenticated administrator to write files to arbitrary locations on the server. This could potentially be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the underlying system. |