timlegge CVE Vulnerabilities & Metrics

Focus on timlegge vulnerabilities and metrics.

Last updated: 29 Mar 2026, 22:25 UTC

About timlegge Security Exposure

This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with timlegge. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.

For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.

Global CVE Overview

Total timlegge CVEs: 1
Earliest CVE date: 08 Mar 2026, 01:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 08 Mar 2026, 01:15 UTC

Latest CVE reference: CVE-2026-30909

Rolling Stats

30-day Count (Rolling): 1
365-day Count (Rolling): 1

Calendar-based Variation

Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.

Variations & Growth

Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%

Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%

Monthly CVE Trends (current vs previous Year)

Annual CVE Trends (Last 20 Years)

Critical timlegge CVEs (CVSS ≥ 9) Over 20 Years

CVSS Stats

Average CVSS: 0.0

Max CVSS: 0

Critical CVEs (≥9): 0

CVSS Range vs. Count

Range Count
0.0-3.9 1
4.0-6.9 0
7.0-8.9 0
9.0-10.0 0

CVSS Distribution Chart

Top 5 Highest CVSS timlegge CVEs

These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for timlegge, sorted by severity first and recency.

All CVEs for timlegge

CVE-2026-30909 timlegge vulnerability CVSS: 0 08 Mar 2026, 01:15 UTC

Crypt::NaCl::Sodium versions through 2.002 for Perl has potential integer overflows. bin2hex, encrypt, aes256gcm_encrypt_afternm and seal functions do not check that output size will be less than SIZE_MAX, which could lead to integer wraparound causing an undersized output buffer. Encountering this issue is unlikely as the message length would need to be very large. For bin2hex() the bin_len would have to be > SIZE_MAX / 2 For encrypt() the msg_len would need to be > SIZE_MAX - 16U For aes256gcm_encrypt_afternm() the msg_len would need to be > SIZE_MAX - 16U For seal() the enc_len would need to be > SIZE_MAX - 64U