🚨 CVE-2026-78003 The Mailgun for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via path traversal in versions up to and including 2.2.0. This is due to insufficient input validation in the add_list() function, which accepts user-controlled array keys from $_POST['addresses'], passes them through sanitize_text_field(). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to make au…

Channel
CVE Notify
@cveNotify
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
19,717subscribers
+162 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1001129491012 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @cveNotify |
| Description | Alert on the latest CVEs Partner channel: @malwr |
| Created | Between 1 June 2017 and 31 October 2020— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 21 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 15 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 21 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/cveNotify |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 21 Aug 2026, 21:06 | 19,717 | +5 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 14:42 | 19,712 | +5 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 15:42 | 19,707 | +11 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 15:16 | 19,696 | +29 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 12:59 | 19,667 | +6 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 06:46 | 19,661 | +19 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 17:06 | 19,642 | +19 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 06:53 | 19,623 | +8 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 06:08 | 19,615 | +8 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 08:16 | 19,607 | +7 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 05:30 | 19,600 | +7 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 07:12 | 19,593 | +31 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 04:54 | 19,562 | +5 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 06:40 | 19,557 | +2 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 04:45 | 19,555 | first reading |
Engagement
674 posts held, back to 7 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 34 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- 0.108%
- avg views ÷ 19,717 subscribers
- Avg views / post
- 21.3
- 674 posts measured
- Reaction rate
- 1.43%
- reactions ÷ views · ER floor
- Posts in window
- 674
- of 674 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 4 of 674 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 22 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 674 (7 August 2026 – 22 August 2026) |
| Views total | 14,364 |
| Reactions total | 3 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 22 Aug 2026, 09:44 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
What this channel posts
- Photos
- ≈4
- Links
- ≈265,000
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 22 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
Reaction mix
3 reactions across 3 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 33.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 1 | 33.3% | |
| 👍 | 1 | 33.3% | |
| 😎 | 1 | 33.3% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 4 of the 674 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 3reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 674 most recent posts we hold, published 7 August 2026 to 22 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Recent posts
🚨 CVE-2026-12710 A Missing Authorization vulnerability in the QueryEngineTask of Google Cloud Application Integration (versions from 2025-04-28 to 2026-04-04) allows an external attacker to access sensitive internal data. The issue was patched on April 4, 2026; no customer action is required. 🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-12505 A flaw was found in the cifs-utils package where the cifs.upcall helper fails to securely drop its root privileges before looking up user information inside a user-controlled environment. A local, low privileged attacker can exploit this by using a crafted request_key payload to trick the root-owned helper into entering a custom environment (namespace) containing a malicious NSS module. This forces t…
🚨 CVE-2026-8836 A vulnerability was found in lwIP up to 2.2.1. Affected is the function snmp_parse_inbound_frame of the file src/apps/snmp/snmp_msg.c of the component snmpv3 USM Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument msgAuthenticationParameters results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be initiated remotely. The patch is named 0c957ec03054eb6c8205e9c9d1d05d90ada3898c. It is suggested to insta…
🚨 CVE-2026-77002 The SmilePass Selfie Login WordPress plugin through 1.0.2 does not perform any server-side verification of the identity it is asked to authenticate, allowing unauthenticated users to log in as any registered account, including administrators. 🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-77001 The Social Login & Sharing buttons with Analytics By SoClever WordPress plugin through 1.2.0 does not perform any authentication, authorisation or nonce checks in one of its publicly accessible login handlers, allowing unauthenticated attackers to obtain a valid session as any existing user, including administrators. In the default case a session as the site's original administrator account is obtain…
🚨 CVE-2026-77000 The WP Social Media Login WordPress plugin through 1.0.6 does not verify that a social login was actually completed with the identity provider before authenticating a visitor, allowing unauthenticated attackers to log in as any existing user, including administrators, by supplying that user's email address. 🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-76793 The Firebase Authentication WordPress plugin before 1.7.1 does not require the email address in an authentication token to be verified before matching it to a WordPress account and issuing a session, allowing unauthenticated attackers to log in as any user, including administrators. 🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-19221 The Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.57.0.5 does not restrict a network-wide setting to network administrators, allowing an administrator of any single site on a multisite network to execute arbitrary code across the entire network. 🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-76789 The Slider Hero with Video Background, Animation WordPress plugin before 9.1.3 does not have authorisation and nonce checks on two of its request handlers, and does not escape a stored setting before outputting it, allowing unauthenticated users to store malicious JavaScript which will be executed in the context of an administrator viewing the Slider Hero with Video Background, Animation WordPress pl…
🚨 CVE-2026-19222 The Forminator Forms WordPress plugin before 1.57.0.7 does not consistently enforce the role restriction it applies to registration forms, allowing users who are permitted to build forms to configure one that assigns the administrator role to any visitor who registers through it. 🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-19093 The Tutor LMS WordPress plugin before 4.0.6 does not validate a stored file path before using it to stream media, allowing users with the instructor role to read arbitrary files on the server, including files outside the web root. The readable files include the WordPress configuration file, which exposes the database credentials and the authentication keys and salts, so authentication cookies can b…
Showing the 12 most recent of 674 posts we hold for @cveNotify. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 235,667 of 1,583,249entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 2 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
- Dead references
- 1
- handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
- Evidenced gone
- 0
- we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
- Never seen alive
- 1
- vacant every time we have ever looked
@cveNotify named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
named in 1 post, 21 August 2026 – 21 August 2026
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
@udemyrip · 66,962
Telegram ranks this channel #31 of 36 here — alongside 35 others — read 21 August 2026
@thehackernews · 162,161
Telegram ranks this channel #32 of 58 here — alongside 57 others — read 13 August 2026
This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 21 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“CVE Notify” (@cveNotify), 19,717 subscribers as measured 21 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cveNotify.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.