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/cisagov/malcolm | affected | < ca3d1febde94fef45d82151772a40f5f961a35c9 | vendor fix → ca3d1febde94fef45d82151772a40f5f961a35c9 | osv | |
| https://github.com/cisagov/malcolm | fixed | ca3d1febde94fef45d82151772a40f5f961a35c9 | vendor fix → ca3d1febde94fef45d82151772a40f5f961a35c9 | osv | |
| CISA/Malcolm CISA · Malcolm | affected | < v26.06.0 | none available | cve_cna | |
| CISA/Malcolm CISA · Malcolm | not affected | v26.06.0 | not applicable | 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.