The company will use the investment to accelerate the adoption of its solution among financial institutions and digital businesses.
The post Monnai Raises $12 Million for Identity and Risk Data Infrastructure appeared first on SecurityWeek.
China has more than 5,000 cybersecurity companies and all the top 20 firms are working with the government.
The post Cybersecurity Firms React to China’s Reported Software Ban appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The life of a modern head of information security (also known as CISO – Chief Information Security Officer) is not just about fighting hackers. It’s also an endless quest that goes by the name of “compliance”. Regulators keep tightening the screws, standards pop up like mushrooms, and headaches only get worse; but wait… – there’s more: CISOs are responsible not only for their own perimeter, but what goes on outside it too: for their entire supply chain, all their contractors, and the whole hodge-podge of software their business processes run on. Though the logic here is solid, it’s also unfortunately ruthless: if a hole is found at your supplier, but the problems hit you, in the end it’s you who’s held accountable. This logic applies to security software too.
Back in the day, companies rarely thought about what was actually inside the security solutions and products they used. Now, however, businesses – especially large ones – want to know everything: what’s really inside the box? Who wrote the code? Is it going to break some critical function or could it even bring everything down? (We’ve seen such precedents; example: the Crowdstrike 2024 update incident.) Where and how is data processed? And these are the right questions to ask.
The problem lies in the fact that almost all customers trust their vendors to answer accurately when asked such questions – very often because they have no other choice. A more mature approach in today’s cyber-reality is to verify.
In corporate-speak this is called supply-chain trust, and trying to solve this puzzle on your own is a serious headache. You need help from vendors. A responsible vendor is ready to show what’s under the hood of its solutions, to open up the source code to partners and customers for review, and, in general, to earn trust not with nice slides but with solid, practical steps.
So who’s already doing this, and who’s still stuck in the past? A fresh, in-depth study from our colleagues in Europe has the answer. It was conducted by the respected testing lab AV-Comparatives, the Tyrol Chamber of Commerce (WKO), the MCI Entrepreneurial School, and the law firm Studio Legale Tremolada.
The main conclusion of the study is that the era of “black boxes” in cybersecurity is over. RIP. Amen. The future belongs to those who don’t hide their source code and vulnerability reports, and who give customers maximum choice when configuring their products. And the report clearly states who doesn’t just promise but actually delivers. Guess who!…
What a great guess! Yes – it’s us!
We give our customers something that is still, unfortunately, a rare and endangered species in the industry: transparency centers, source code reviews of our products, a detailed software bill of materials (SBOM), and the ability to check update history and control rollouts. And of course we provide everything that’s already become the industry standard. You can study all the details in the full “Transparency and Accountability in Cybersecurity” (TRACS) report, or in our summary. Below, I’ll walk through some of the most interesting bits.
TRACS reviewed 14 popular vendors and their EPP/EDR products – from Bitdefender and CrowdStrike to our EDR Optimum and WithSecure. The objective was to understand which vendors don’t just say “trust us”, but actually let you verify their claims. The study covered 60 criteria: from GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation – it’s a European study after all) compliance and ISO 27001 audits, to the ability to process all telemetry locally and access a product’s source code. But the authors decided not to give points for each category or form a single overall ranking.
Why? Because everyone has different threat models and risks. What is a feature for one may be a bug and a disaster for another. Take fast, fully automatic installation of updates. For a small business or a retail company with thousands of tiny independent branches, this is a blessing: they’d never have enough IT staff to manage all of that manually. But for a factory where a computer controls the conveyor it would be totally unacceptable. A defective update can bring a production line to a standstill, which in terms of business impact could be fatal (or at least worse than the recent Jaguar Land Rover cyberattack); here, every update needs to be tested first. It’s the same story with telemetry. A PR agency sends data from its computers to the vendor’s cloud to participate in detecting cyberthreats and get protection instantly. Perfect. A company that processes patients’ medical records or highly classified technical designs on its computers? Its telemetry settings would need to be reconsidered.
Ideally, each company should assign “weights” to every criterion, and calculate its own “compatibility rating” with EDR/EPP vendors. But one thing is obvious: whoever gives customers choices, wins.
Take file reputation analysis of suspicious files. It can work in two ways: through the vendor’s common cloud, or through a private micro-cloud within a single organization. Plus there’s the option to disable this analysis altogether and work completely offline. Very few vendors give customers all three options. For example, “on-premise” reputation analysis is available from only eight vendors in the test. It goes without saying we’re one of them.
In every category of the test the situation is roughly the same as with the reputation service. Going carefully through all 45 pages of the report, we’re either ahead of our competitors or among the leaders. And we can proudly say that in roughly a third of the comparative categories we offer significantly better capabilities than most of our peers. See for yourself:
Visiting a transparency center and reviewing the source code? Verifying that the product binaries are built from this source code? Only three vendors in the test provide these things. And for one of them – it’s only for government customers. Our transparency centers are the most numerous and geographically spread out, and offer customers the widest range of options.
The opening of our first transparency center back in 2018
Downloading database updates and rechecking them? Only six players – including us – provide this.
Configuring multi-stage rollout of updates? This isn’t exactly rare, but it’s not widespread either – only seven vendors besides us support it.
Reading the results of an external security audit of the company? Only we and six other vendors are ready to share this with customers.
Breaking down a supply chain into separate links using an SBOM? This is rare too: you can request an SBOM from only three vendors. One of them is the green-colored company that happens to bear my name.
Of course, there are categories where everyone does well: all of them have successfully passed an ISO/IEC 27001 audit, comply with GDPR, follow secure development practices, and accept vulnerability reports.
Finally, there’s the matter of technical indicators. All products that work online send certain technical data about protected computers, and information about infected files. For many businesses this isn’t a problem, and they’re glad it improves effectiveness of protection. But for those seriously focused on minimizing data flows, AV-Comparatives measures those too – and we just so happen to collect the least amounts of telemetry compared to other vendors.
Thanks to the Austrian experts, CISOs and their teams now have a much simpler task ahead when checking their security vendors. And not just the 14 that were tested. The same framework can be applied to other security solution vendors and to software in general. But there are strategic conclusions too…
Transparency makes risk management easier. If you’re responsible for keeping a business running, you don’t want to guess whether your protection tool will become your weak point. You need predictability and accountability. The WKO and AV-Comparatives study confirms that our model reduces these risks and makes them manageable.
Evidence instead of slogans. In this business, it’s not enough to be able write “we are secure” on your website. You need audit mechanisms. The customer has to be able to drop by and verify things for themselves. We provide that. Others are still catching up.
Transparency and maturity go hand in hand. Vendors that are transparent for their customers usually also have more mature processes for product development, incident response, and vulnerability handling. Their products and services are more reliable.
Our approach to transparency (GTI) works. When we announced our initiative several years ago and opened Transparency Centers around the world, we heard all kinds of things from critics – like that it was a waste of money and that nobody needed it. Now independent European experts are saying that this is how a vendor should operate in 2025 and beyond.
It was a real pleasure reading this report. Not just because it praises us, but because the industry is finally turning in the right direction – toward transparency and accountability.
We started this trend, we’re leading it, and we’re going to keep pioneering within it. So, dear readers and users, don’t forget: trust is one thing; being able to fully verify is another.
AI will assist companies in finding their external attack surface, but it will also assist bad actors in locating and attacking the weak points.
The post Cyber Insights 2026: External Attack Surface Management appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) is a continuous program and operational framework, not a single pre-boxed platform. Flashpoint believes that effective CTEM must be intelligence-led, using curated threat intelligence as the operational core to prioritize risk and turn exposure data into defensible decisions.
Table Of ContentsSince Gartner’s introduction of CTEM as a framework in 2022, cybersecurity vendors have engaged in a rapid “productization” race. This has led to inconsistent market definitions, with a variety of vendors from vulnerability scanners to Attack Surface Management (ASM) providers now claiming to be an “exposure management” solution.
The current approach to productizing CTEM is flawed. There is no such thing as a single “exposure management platform.” The enterprise reality is that most enterprises buy three or more products just to approximate what CTEM promises in theory. Even with these technologies, organizations still require heavy lifting with people, process, and custom integrations to actually make it work.
A functional CTEM approach typically requires multiple platforms or tools, including:
In some cases, organizations may also use an ASM vendor for shadow IT discovery, a CMDB for asset context, and ticketing integrations to drive remediation. This multi-platform model is the rule, not the exception. And that raises a hard truth: if you need three or more products, plus a dedicated team to implement CTEM, you need an intelligence-led CTEM program.
The narrative that CTEM can be packaged into a single product breaks down for three critical reasons:
You cannot buy a capability that requires full-stack asset visibility, contextualized threat actor data, real-world validation, and remediation orchestration from one tool. Each component spans a different domain of expertise and data. A vulnerability scanner, alone, cannot validate exploitability, a pentest service has a tough time scaling to daily monitoring, and generic threat intelligence feeds cannot provide critical business context.
However, CTEM requires orchestration of all these components in one operational loop. No single product delivers this comprehensively out of the box; this is why CTEM must be viewed as a continuous program, not a one-size-fits-all product.
Vendors often advertise automation, however, key intelligence functions are still powered by and reliant on human analysis. Even with best-in-class AI tools in place, security teams are depending on human insights for:
In other words, exposure management today still relies on human insights and expertise. So while vendors advertise “automation and intelligence,” what they’re really delivering is a starting point. Ultimately, AI is a force multiplier for threat analysts, not a replacement.
Most platforms treat exposure like a math problem. But real risk isn’t just CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) scores or asset counts, it requires answering critical, intelligence-based questions:
These answers require intelligence, not just data. Best-in-class intelligence provides security teams with confirmed exploit activity in the wild, context around attacker usage in APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) campaigns, and detailed metadata for prioritization where CVSS fails. That is why Flashpoint intelligence is leveraged by over 800 organizations as the operational core of exposure management, turning exposure data into defensible decisions.
If your risk strategy requires continuous penetration and exploit testing, vulnerability management, threat intelligence, and manual prioritization and validation, you’re not buying CTEM; you’re building it. At Flashpoint, we’re helping organizations build CTEM the right way: driven by intelligence, and powered by integrations and AI.
Flashpoint treats CTEM for what it really is, as a program that must be constructed intelligently, iteratively, and contextually.
That means:
Using Flashpoint’s intelligence collections, organizations can achieve intelligence-led exposure management, with threat and vulnerability intelligence working together to provide context and actionable insights in a continuous, prioritized loop. This empowers security teams to build and scale their own CTEM programs, which is the only realistic approach in a cybersecurity landscape where no single platform can do it all.
If you’re evaluating exposure management tools, ask yourself:
The answers may surprise you. At Flashpoint, we’re helping organizations build CTEM the right way, driven by intelligence, powered by integration, and grounded in reality. Request a demo today and see how best-in-class intelligence is the key to achieving an effective CTEM program.
The post Why Effective CTEM Must be an Intelligence-Led Program appeared first on Flashpoint.
Anticipate, contextualize, and prioritize vulnerabilities to effectively address threats to your organization.
Table Of ContentsFlashpoint’s VulnDB documents over 400,000 vulnerabilities and has over 6,000 entries in Flashpoint’s KEV database, making it a critical resource as vulnerability exploitation rises. However, if your organization is relying solely on CVE data, you may be missing critical vulnerability metadata and insights that hinder timely remediation. That’s why we created this weekly series—where we surface and analyze the most high priority vulnerabilities security teams need to know about.
Of the vulnerabilities Flashpoint published this week, there are 34 that you can take immediate action on. They each have a solution, a public exploit exists, and are remotely exploitable. As such, these vulnerabilities are a great place to begin your prioritization efforts.
Of the vulnerabilities Flashpoint published last week, four are highlighted in this week’s Vulnerability Insights and Prioritization Report because they contain one or more of the following criteria:
In addition, all of these vulnerabilities are easily discoverable and therefore should be investigated and fixed immediately.
To proactively address these vulnerabilities and ensure comprehensive coverage beyond publicly available sources on an ongoing basis, organizations can leverage Flashpoint Vulnerability Intelligence. Flashpoint provides comprehensive coverage encompassing IT, OT, IoT, CoTs, and open-source libraries and dependencies. It catalogs over 100,000 vulnerabilities that are not included in the NVD or lack a CVE ID, ensuring thorough coverage beyond publicly available sources. The vulnerabilities that are not covered by the NVD do not yet have CVE ID assigned and will be noted with a VulnDB ID.
| CVE ID | Title | CVSS Scores (v2, v3, v4) | Exploit Status | Exploit Consequence | Ransomware Likelihood Score | Social Risk Score | Solution Availability |
| CVE-2025-33222 | NVIDIA Isaac Launchable Unspecified Hardcoded Credentials | 5.0 9.8 9.3 | Private | Credential Disclosure | High | Low | Yes |
| CVE-2025-33223 | NVIDIA Isaac Launchable Unspecified Improper Execution Privileges Remote Code Execution | 10.0 9.8 9.3 | Private | Remote Code Execution | High | Low | Yes |
| CVE-2025-68613 | n8n Package for Node.js packages/workflow/src/expression-evaluator-proxy.ts Workflow Expression Evaluation Remote Code Execution | 9.0 9.9 9.4 | Public | Remote Code Execution | High | High | Yes |
| CVE-2025-14847 | MongoDB transport/message_compressor_zlib.cpp ZlibMessageCompressor::decompressData() Function Zlib Compressed Protocol Header Handling Remote Uninitialized Memory Disclosure (Mongobleed) | 10.0 9.8 9.3 | Public | Uninitialized Memory Disclosure | High | High | Yes |
Flashpoint Ignite lays all of these components out. Below is an example of what this vulnerability record for CVE-2025-33223 looks like.
Below, Flashpoint analysts describe the five vulnerabilities highlighted above as vulnerabilities that should be of focus for remediation if your organization is exposed.
NVIDIA Isaac Launchable contains a flaw that is triggered by the use of unspecified hardcoded credentials. This may allow a remote attacker to trivially gain privileged access to the program.
NVIDIA Isaac Launchable contains an unspecified flaw that is triggered as certain activities are executed with unnecessary privileges. This may allow a remote attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code.
n8n Package for Node.js contains a flaw in packages/workflow/src/expression-evaluator-proxy.ts that is triggered as workflow expressions are evaluated in an improperly isolated execution context. This may allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the n8n process.
MongoDB contains a flaw in the ZlibMessageCompressor::decompressData() function in mongo/transport/message_compressor_zlib.cpp that is triggered when handling mismatched length fields in Zlib compressed protocol headers. This may allow a remote attacker to disclose uninitialized memory contents on the heap.
| CVE/VulnDB ID | Flashpoint Published Date |
| CVE-2025-21218 | Week of January 15, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-57811 | Week of January 15, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-55591 | Week of January 15, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-23006 | Week of January 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20156 | Week of January 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-50664 | Week of January 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-24085 | Week of January 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-40890 | Week of January 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-40891 | Week of January 29, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 389414 | Week of January 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-25181 | Week of February 5, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-40890 | Week of February 5, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-40891 | Week of February 5, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-8266 | Week of February 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-0108 | Week of February 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-24472 | Week of February 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-21355 | Week of February 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-26613 | Week of February 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-13789 | Week of February 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-1539 | Week of February 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27364 | Week of March 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27140 | Week of March 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27135 | Week of March 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-8420 | Week of March 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-56196 | Week of March 10, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27554 | Week of March 10, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-22224 | Week of March 10, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-1393 | Week of March 10, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-24201 | Week of March 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27363 | Week of March 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-2000 | Week of March 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27636 CVE-2025-29891 | Week of March 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-1496 | Week of March 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27781 | Week of March 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-29913 | Week of March 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-2746 | Week of March 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-29927 | Week of March 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-1974 CVE-2025-2787 | Week of March 31, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-30259 | Week of March 31, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-2783 | Week of March 31, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-30216 | Week of March 31, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-22457 | Week of April 2, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-2071 | Week of April 2, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-30356 | Week of April 2, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-3015 | Week of April 2, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-31129 | Week of April 2, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-3248 | Week of April 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27797 | Week of April 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27690 | Week of April 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32375 | Week of April 7, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 398725 | Week of April 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32433 | Week of April 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-1980 | Week of April 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32068 | Week of April 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-31201 | Week of April 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-3495 | Week of April 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-31324 | Week of April 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-42599 | Week of April 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32445 | Week of April 17, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 400516 | Week of April 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-22372 | Week of April 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32432 | Week of April 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-24522 | Week of April 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-46348 | Week of April 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-43858 | Week of April 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32444 | Week of April 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20188 | Week of May 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-29972 | Week of May 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32819 | Week of May 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27007 | Week of May 3, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 402907 | Week of May 3, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 405228 | Week of May 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-47277 | Week of May 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34027 | Week of May 17, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-47646 | Week of May 17, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 405269 | Week of May 17, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 406046 | Week of May 19, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-48926 | Week of May 19, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-47282 | Week of May 19, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-48054 | Week of May 19, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-41651 | Week of May 19, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20289 | Week of June 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-5597 | Week of June 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20674 | Week of June 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-5622 | Week of June 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-5419 | Week of June 3, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-33053 | Week of June 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-5353 | Week of June 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-22455 | Week of June 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-43200 | Week of June 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27819 | Week of June 7, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-49132 | Week of June 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-49136 | Week of June 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-50201 | Week of June 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-49125 | Week of June 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-24288 | Week of June 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-6543 | Week of June 21, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-3699 | Week of June 21, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34046 | Week of June 21, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34036 | Week of June 21, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34044 | Week of June 21, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-7503 | Week of July 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-6558 | Week of July 12, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 411705 | Week of July 12, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 411704 | Week of July 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-6222 | Week of July 12, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-54309 | Week of July 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-53771 | Week of July 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-53770 | Week of July 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-54122 | Week of July 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-52166 | Week of July 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-53942 | Week of July 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-46811 | Week of July 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-52452 | Week of July 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-41680 | Week of July 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34143 | Week of July 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-50454 | Week of August 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-8875 | Week of August 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-8876 | Week of August 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-55150 | Week of August 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-25256 | Week of August 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-43300 | Week of August 16, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34153 | Week of August 16, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-48148 | Week of August 16, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 416058 | Week of August 16, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-32992 | Week of August 16, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-7775 | Week of August 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-8424 | Week of August 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34159 | Week of August 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-57819 | Week of August 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-7426 | Week of August 24, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-58367 | Week of September 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-58159 | Week of September 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-58048 | Week of September 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-39247 | Week of September 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-8857 | Week of September 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-58321 | Week of September 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-58366 | Week of September 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-58371 | Week of September 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-55728 | Week of September 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-55190 | Week of September 8, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 419253 | Week of September 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-10035 | Week of September 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-59346 | Week of September 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-55727 | Week of September 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-10159 | Week of September 13, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20363 | Week of September 20, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20333 | Week of September 20, 2025 |
| CVE-2022-4980 | Week of September 20, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 420451 | Week of September 20, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-9900 | Week of September 20, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-52906 | Week of September 27, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-51495 | Week of September 27, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27224 | Week of September 27, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-27223 | Week of September 27, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-54875 | Week of September 27, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-41244 | Week of September 27, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-61928 | Week of October 6, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-61882 | Week of October 6, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-49844 | Week of October 6 2025 |
| CVE-2025-57870 | Week of October 6, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34224 | Week of October 6, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-34222 | Week of October 6, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-40765 | Week of October 11, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-59230 | Week of October 11, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-24990 | Week of October 11, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-61884 | Week of October 11, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-41430 | Week of October 11, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 424051 | Week of October 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-62645 | Week of October 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-61932 | Week of October 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-59503 | Week of October 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-43995 | Week of October 18, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-62168 | Week of October 18, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 425182 | Week of October 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-62713 | Week of October 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-54964 | Week of October 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-58274 | Week of October 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-41723 | Week of October 25, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-20354 | Week of November 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-11953 | Week of November 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-60854 | Week of November 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-64095 | Week of November 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-11833 | Week of November 1, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-64446 | Week of November 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-36250 | Week of November 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-64400 | Week of November 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-12686 | Week of November 8, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-59118 | Week of November 8, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 426231 | Week of November 8, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 427979 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-55796 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-64428 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-62703 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| VulnDB ID: 428193 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-65018 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-54347 | Week of November 22, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-55182 | Week of November 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2024-14007 | Week of November 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-66399 | Week of November 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2022-35420 | Week of November 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-66516 | Week of November 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-59366 | Week of November 29, 2025 |
| CVE-2025-14174 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
| CVE-2025-43529 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
| CVE-2025-8110 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
| CVE-2025-59719 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
| CVE-2025-59718 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
| CVE-2025-14087 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
| CVE-2025-62221 | Week of December 6, 2026 |
Request a demo today to see how Flashpoint can transform your vulnerability intelligence, vulnerability management, and exposure identification program.
Login