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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FatPipe/IPVPN FatPipe · IPVPN | affected | >= 10.1, < 10.1.2r60p92 | none available | cve_cna | |
| FatPipe/IPVPN FatPipe · IPVPN | affected | >= 10.2, < 10.2.2r44p1 | none available | cve_cna | |
| FatPipe/MPVPN FatPipe · MPVPN | affected | >= 10.1, < 10.1.2r60p92 | none available | cve_cna | |
| FatPipe/MPVPN FatPipe · MPVPN | affected | >= 10.2, < 10.2.2r44p1 | none available | cve_cna | |
| FatPipe/WARP FatPipe · WARP | affected | >= 10.1, < 10.1.2r60p92 | none available | cve_cna | |
| FatPipe/WARP FatPipe · WARP | affected | >= 10.2, < 10.2.2r44p1 | 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.