Critical Alert 3 Active Exploits Detected Today

CVE-2025-39964 Linux Kernel Race Condition Vulnerability →
CVE-2026-53266 Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write Vulnerability →
CVE-2025-39682 Linux Kernel Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions Vulnerability →
Powered by CVE Watchtower
×

CVE Statistics by Vendor 2026 — Vulnerability Counts & Trends

CVE Statistics by Vendor (2026)

This page tracks how many CVEs each major vendor has accumulated in 2026, broken down by severity, active exploitation, and average CVSS score. Data is pulled directly from our CVE Watchtower database and refreshes automatically as new vulnerabilities are published. Use it to benchmark vendor risk, prioritize your patch queue, or cite in security reports.

Last updated: September 18, 2026 · CVE-2026-* identifiers tracked by CVE Watchtower

#VendorShareCVEsCriticalHighExploitedAvg CVSS
1 WordPress ecosystem
6855 660 2369 10 6.7
2 Linux kernel
5980 519 2513 3 7.4
3 Microsoft
3821 272 2334 27 7.4
4 Google
3210 341 1190 7 6.9
5 Oracle
2673 515 1285 3 7.5
6 IBM
894 125 430 1 7.3
7 Apple
893 74 215 3 6.7
8 Mozilla
492 158 168 0 8.1
9 Adobe
438 55 116 3 6.6
10 Cisco
330 58 112 15 7.1
11 D-Link
250 48 116 0 7.5
12 Samsung
227 0 27 0 6.0
13 GitLab
175 7 52 1 5.9
14 SAP
160 21 25 0 6.1
15 Palo Alto Networks
79 1 0 2 5.1
16 Fortinet
72 11 19 6 6.5
17 Juniper
66 3 28 0 6.9
18 Atlassian
43 5 15 0 7.2
19 Ivanti
39 11 22 5 8.2
20 VMware
32 7 15 2 7.7
Methodology. A high CVE count does not mean a vendor is less secure. Large vendors with mature disclosure programs report more vulnerabilities. Vendor attribution matches each CVE's references against official vendor advisory domains first (e.g. Cisco PSIRT, MSRC), falling back to description keywords; one primary vendor is counted per CVE, and only CVEs tracked in our Watchtower database are included. Figures update automatically as new CVE-2026 identifiers are ingested.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does WordPress top the list with nearly 6,500 CVEs?

WordPress core itself is secure. The count reflects the entire WordPress ecosystem — thousands of third-party plugins and themes, many maintained by small teams with limited security resources. With 639 Critical and 2,292 High-severity CVEs in 2026, keeping plugins updated is often more important than patching the WordPress core.

Which vendors have the most actively exploited CVEs?

Look at the Exploited column, not the total count. Microsoft leads with 27 exploited CVEs, followed by Cisco with 13, WordPress ecosystem with 10, and Google with 7. These are confirmed in the CISA KEV catalog, meaning attackers are actively using them. A high total count matters far less than a high exploited count.

Why does Linux kernel rank second with nearly 5,000 CVEs?

The Linux kernel runs billions of devices worldwide, from servers to smartphones. Its codebase is enormous and open, so thousands of researchers audit it continuously. High CVE volume here reflects transparency and active research, not poor security. Notably, only 2 Linux kernel CVEs reached confirmed exploitation in 2026.

Microsoft has fewer CVEs than WordPress but more exploited ones. Why?

Microsoft recorded 3,751 total CVEs versus WordPress’s 6,497 — yet Microsoft has 27 exploited CVEs against WordPress’s 10. Microsoft’s enterprise software is a high-value target, so attackers invest more effort weaponizing its vulnerabilities. This is exactly why total count alone is a poor risk measure.

What does the “Exploited” column actually mean?

It counts how many of a vendor’s 2026 CVEs have been added to the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Cisco stands out here: despite only 245 total CVEs, 13 are actively exploited — a high exploitation ratio that makes Cisco a priority for defenders running its products.

Which vendors have the highest average severity?

Average CVSS reveals severity concentration. Mozilla and Ivanti both average 8.2 — the highest in the top 20 — reflecting the serious nature of browser and remote-access vulnerabilities. Oracle follows at 7.5. A high average CVSS means that when a CVE does appear, it tends to be severe.

How is vendor attribution determined?

Each CVE’s references are matched against official vendor advisory domains first — for example Cisco PSIRT or Microsoft MSRC — with description keywords as a fallback. One primary vendor is assigned per CVE. For the WordPress ecosystem, we match against wpscan.com, patchstack.com, and wordfence.com, so a plugin vulnerability is grouped under “WordPress ecosystem” rather than the individual developer.