Total
271321 CVE
CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2016-2144 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2015-0284. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2015-0284. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2015-0284 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
CVE-2016-2447 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2016-4477. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2016-4477. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2016-4477 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2014-9791 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-0196. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2014-0196. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-0196 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2016-6339 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2016-4993. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2016-4993. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2016-4993 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2024-26464 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
net-snmp 5.9.4 contains a memory leak vulnerability in /net-snmp/apps/snmpvacm.c. | |||||
CVE-2013-6125 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 2013. Notes: none | |||||
CVE-2015-2235 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2015-1067. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2015-1067. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2015-1067 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2013-6156 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 2013. Notes: none | |||||
CVE-2014-8615 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 2014. Notes: none | |||||
CVE-2014-2937 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-3220. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2014-3220. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-3220 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2014-99999 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: This ID is frequently used as an example of the 2014 CVE-ID syntax change, which allows more than 4 digits in the sequence number. Notes: See references | |||||
CVE-2013-7072 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 unique security issue, and some vulnerability databases had associated inapplicable details with this ID. Notes: none | |||||
CVE-2014-456132 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: This ID is frequently used as an example of the 2014 CVE-ID syntax change, which allows more than 4 digits in the sequence number. Notes: See references | |||||
CVE-2015-0246 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2015-1493. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2015-1493. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2015-1493 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2014-5043 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 | |||||
CVE-2014-3605 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-6407. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2014-6407. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-6407 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
CVE-2013-6145 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 2013. Notes: none | |||||
CVE-2014-10000 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None. Reason: This ID is frequently used as an example of the 2014 CVE-ID syntax change, which allows more than 4 digits in the sequence number. Notes: See references | |||||
CVE-2015-2010 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
Rejected reason: DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2015-0010. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2015-0010. A typo caused the wrong ID to be used. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2015-0010 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage | |||||
CVE-2014-3799 | 2024-02-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
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 within the scope of CVE. Notes: none |