Where
AND
-Infinity
0

Vendor Risk Score

See how redhat compares to other vendors in security performance

View Risk Score →

Software

redhat enterprise linux
544
redhat enterprise linux server
358
redhat enterprise linux desktop
356
redhat enterprise linux workstation
344
redhat enterprise linux server aus
226
redhat enterprise linux server tus
183
redhat enterprise linux eus
148
redhat enterprise linux server eus
132
redhat openshift container platform
103
redhat linux
100
redhat jboss enterprise application platform
62
redhat enterprise linux for ibm z systems
46
redhat enterprise linux for power little endian
43
redhat enterprise linux for power little endian eus
43
redhat enterprise linux for ibm z systems eus
42
redhat openshift
38
redhat build of keycloak
35
redhat single sign-on
35
redhat virtualization
35
redhat enterprise linux server for power little endian update services for sap solutions
34
redhat virtualization host
33
redhat satellite
32
redhat software collections
31
redhat openstack
24
redhat enterprise linux for real time
22
redhat codeready linux builder
21
redhat enterprise linux for arm 64
21
redhat enterprise linux for arm 64 eus
21
redhat enterprise linux for scientific computing
21
redhat linux advanced workstation
21
redhat jboss core services
20
redhat enterprise linux for real time for nfv
19
redhat enterprise linux server update services for sap solutions
18
redhat enterprise linux update services for sap solutions
18
redhat enterprise linux aus
17
redhat hardened images
17
redhat enterprise linux hpc node
16
redhat fedora core
16
redhat openshift service mesh
16
redhat quay
16
redhat codeready linux builder eus
14
redhat codeready linux builder for ibm z systems eus
13
redhat codeready linux builder for power little endian eus
13
redhat enterprise linux for power big endian
13
redhat jboss enterprise web server
13
redhat keycloak
13
redhat codeready linux builder for arm64 eus
12
redhat enterprise mrg
12
redhat undertow
12
redhat enterprise linux for real time for nfv tus
11
Severity
8.6
Buffer Overflow
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H

A flaw was found in libsoup. When constructing a masked WebSocket client frame for a very large outgoing payload, size values passed to GByteArray allocation APIs could be truncated while the masking routine still used the full length, causing a heap buffer overflow.

1 / 3
Source: NVD
First published (updated )
Severity
8.6
Buffer Overflow
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H

A flaw was found in libsoup. When max-incoming-payload-size is unlimited (0), SoupWebsocketConnection could grow its incoming GByteArray based on an attacker-controlled frame length until the length wrapped, causing a heap buffer overflow while reading frame data.

1 / 3
Source: NVD
First published (updated )
Severity
8.6
Buffer Overflow
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H

A flaw was found in libsoup. When reassembling fragmented WebSocket messages into a GByteArray, libsoup did not adequately cap total message size against the limits of the underlying buffer type. A remote peer could send fragments that caused size truncation while the implementation still used the full length, leading to heap corruption or a crash.

1 / 3
Source: NVD
First published (updated )
Severity
8.6
Buffer Overflow
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H

A flaw was found in libsoup. When handling an incoming WebSocket Pong frame, SoupWebsocketConnection emitted the ::pong signal with a GByteArray pointer even though the signal is declared to pass a GBytes. Applications connecting a handler that follows the documented GBytes API can trigger heap corruption or a crash upon receiving a crafted Pong.

1 / 3
Source: NVD
First published (updated )
Severity
8.2
Buffer Overflow
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H

A flaw was found in libsoup. The soupuridecodedatauri() function incorrectly treated base64 data-URI payloads as NUL-terminated strings when calling gbase64decodeinplace(). If the percent-decoded payload contained embedded NUL bytes, the decoded length could remain uninitialized and be used as the size of the returned GBytes. This can lead to an out-of-bounds read or application crash when processing a crafted data URI.

1 / 3
Source: MITRE
First published (updated )
Severity
7.4
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to cleartext transmission of sensitive information.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.6
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to the improper use of reflection with externally controlled input.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.2
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to manipulate database queries due to improper neutralization of special elements in a boolean expression.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8
AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to the use of a hard-coded or predictable cryptographic key.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.1
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to execute unauthorized payment actions due to missing authorization checks.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.9
SSRF
AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information and trigger unauthorized actions due to server-side request forgery.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a local attacker to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information and modify transaction data due to the use of hard-coded credentials.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.4
XEE
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper restriction of XML external entity references.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.5
Path Traversal
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to read arbitrary files due to improper path canonicalization.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.5
AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to cleartext transmission of sensitive information.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information and perform unauthorized actions due to insufficiently protected credentials.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a local attacker to execute arbitrary commands due to the inclusion of functionality from an untrusted control sphere.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.5
XEE
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to improper restriction of XML external entity references.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.2
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to perform unauthorized actions due to improper authentication and missing authorization.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.3
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to access sensitive information and modify system configurations due to missing authentication for a critical function.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.1
SQL Injection
AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary ESQL commands due to improper neutralization of special elements used in an ESQL command.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.1
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information and forge authentication tags due to the use of hard-coded cryptographic keys and initialization vectors.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.4
XEE
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information due to an XML external entity (XXE) injection flaw.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.3
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) 4.x is vulnerable to RAG poisoning via unauthenticated runbook upsert (CWE-74) in the FTM AI agent server (api.vectordb.runbooks.js:51). An unauthenticated attacker can insert malicious runbook content into the agent's vector database to steer AI-driven MCP tool calls, potentially triggering unauthorized payment actions or exfiltrating payment data.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) 4.x is vulnerable to unauthenticated remote code execution via Java native deserialization on the PayDir Business Rules Manager RMI SSL endpoint (BrmRMISSLServerSocketFactory.java:95, EP8). An adjacent-network attacker can deliver a crafted serialized payload to achieve arbitrary code execution, exposing all PayDir credentials and enabling manipulation of payment business rules.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
7.5
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N

FTM 4.x ALL could allow a remote authenticated attacker to obtain sensitive information due to an XML external entity injection flaw.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
Buffer Overflow
AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to a buffer overflow.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote attacker to bypass authentication and access sensitive information due to a hard-coded cryptographic key.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow an adjacent-network attacker to execute arbitrary code due to deserialization of untrusted data.

1 / 2
Source: MITRE
First published (updated )
Severity
8.8
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

IBM Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) could allow a remote authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper validation of a specified quantity.

1 / 2
Source: IBM
First published (updated )

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203