Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/wso2/product-apim | affected | >= 5cdc3f8a5ea212c3bf231cb710ea3436e9aad1d7, <= cf00d9e6cb083f94abae11818794f62cd5c94079 | none available | osv | |
| https://github.com/wso2/product-ei | affected | >= 0f5695f9db169c6486a66ff1a4814a06fc6d6284, <= bfdf341ab6dcfccce35c88b8a1567604f07ba8f5 | none available | osv | |
| n/a/n/a n/a · n/a | affected | no version stated vendor label: all versions | none available | cve_cna |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.