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/openvpn/tap-windows6 | affected | <= dc230ae845f322f546aa154d67aeb989c6ee2398 | none available | osv | |
| OpenVPN/OpenVPN-GUI OpenVPN · OpenVPN-GUI | affected | 2.6.9 and earlier | none available | cve_cna | |
| OpenVPN/tap-windows6 OpenVPN · tap-windows6 | affected | 9.26 or earlier | none available | cve_cna | |
| openvpn/openvpn_gui openvpn · openvpn_gui | affected | <= 2.6.9 | none available | cve_adp | |
| openvpn/tap_windows6 openvpn · tap_windows6 | affected | <= 9.26 | none available | cve_adp |
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.