| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| xml-crypto is an xml digital signature and encryption library for Node.js. In affected versions the default configuration does not check authorization of the signer, it only checks the validity of the signature per section 3.2.2 of the w3 xmldsig-core-20080610 spec. As such, without additional validation steps, the default configuration allows a malicious actor to re-sign an XML document, place the certificate in a `<KeyInfo />` element, and pass `xml-crypto` default validation checks. As a result `xml-crypto` trusts by default any certificate provided via digitally signed XML document's `<KeyInfo />`. `xml-crypto` prefers to use any certificate provided via digitally signed XML document's `<KeyInfo />` even if library was configured to use specific certificate (`publicCert`) for signature verification purposes. An attacker can spoof signature verification by modifying XML document and replacing existing signature with signature generated with malicious private key (created by attacker) and by attaching that private key's certificate to `<KeyInfo />` element. This vulnerability is combination of changes introduced to `4.0.0` on pull request 301 / commit `c2b83f98` and has been addressed in version 6.0.0 with pull request 445 / commit `21201723d`. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may either check the certificate extracted via `getCertFromKeyInfo` against trusted certificates before accepting the results of the validation or set `xml-crypto's getCertFromKeyInfo` to `() => undefined` forcing `xml-crypto` to use an explicitly configured `publicCert` or `privateKey` for signature verification. |
| A flaw was found in osbuild-composer. A condition can be triggered that disables GPG verification for package repositories, which can expose the build phase to a Man-in-the-Middle attack, allowing untrusted code to be installed into an image being built. |
| There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC firmware validation logic at Supermicro MBD-X13SEM-F . An attacker can update the system firmware with a specially crafted image. |
| The system suffers from the absence of a kernel module signature verification. If an attacker can execute commands on behalf of root user (due to additional vulnerabilities), then he/she is also able to load custom kernel modules to the kernel space and execute code in the kernel context. Such a flaw can lead to taking control over the entire system.
First identified on Nissan Leaf ZE1 manufactured in 2020. |
| A potential vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo 510 FHD and Performance FHD web cameras that could allow an attacker with physical access to write arbitrary firmware updates to the device over a USB connection. |
| An issue in D-Link COVR 1100, 1102, 1103 AC1200 Dual-Band Whole-Home Mesh Wi-Fi System (Hardware Rev B1) truncates Wireless Access Point Passwords (WPA-PSK) allowing an attacker to gain unauthorized network access via weak authentication controls. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature issue exists in "FreeFrom - the nostr client" App versions prior to 1.3.5 for Android and iOS. The affected app cannot detect event data with invalid signatures. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Mendix SAML (Mendix 10.12 compatible) (All versions < V4.0.3), Mendix SAML (Mendix 10.21 compatible) (All versions < V4.1.2), Mendix SAML (Mendix 9.24 compatible) (All versions < V3.6.21). Affected versions of the module insufficiently enforce signature validation and binding checks. This could allow unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack an account in specific SSO configurations. |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature in Zscaler's SAML authentication mechanism on the server-side allowed an authentication abuse. |
| This vulnerability exists in the TP-Link Archer C50 due to improper signature verification mechanism in the firmware upgrade process at its web interface. An attacker with administrative privileges within the router’s Wi-Fi range could exploit this vulnerability by uploading and executing malicious firmware which could lead to complete compromise of the targeted device. |
| A certificate with a URI which has a IPv6 address with a zone ID may incorrectly satisfy a URI name constraint that applies to the certificate chain. Certificates containing URIs are not permitted in the web PKI, so this only affects users of private PKIs which make use of URIs. |
| CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability exists that could
compromise the Data Center Expert software when an upgrade bundle is manipulated to
include arbitrary bash scripts that are executed as root. |
| Formbricks is an open source qualtrics alternative. Prior to version 4.0.1, Formbricks is missing JWT signature verification. This vulnerability stems from a token validation routine that only decodes JWTs (jwt.decode) without verifying their signatures. Both the email verification token login path and the password reset server action use the same validator, which does not check the token’s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victim’s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victim’s password. This issue has been patched in version 4.0.1. |
| Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious CPU microcode resulting in loss of confidentiality and integrity of a confidential guest running under AMD SEV-SNP. |
| A vulnerability in the Image Signature Verification feature of Cisco SD-WAN Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with Administrator-level credentials to install a malicious software patch on an affected device.
The vulnerability is due to improper verification of digital signatures for patch images. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by crafting an unsigned software patch to bypass signature checks and loading it on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to boot a malicious software patch image.Cisco has released software updates that address the vulnerability described in this advisory. There are no workarounds that address this vulnerability. |
| rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue. |
| There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC firmware validation logic at Supermicro MBD-X12STW-F . An attacker can update the system firmware with a specially crafted image. |
| cjwt is a C JSON Web Token (JWT) Implementation. Algorithm confusion occurs when a system improperly verifies the type of signature used, allowing attackers to exploit the lack of distinction between signing methods. If the system doesn't differentiate between an HMAC signed token and an RS/EC/PS signed token during verification, it becomes vulnerable to this kind of attack. For instance, an attacker could craft a token with the alg field set to "HS256" while the server expects an asymmetric algorithm like "RS256". The server might mistakenly use the wrong verification method, such as using a public key as the HMAC secret, leading to unauthorised access. For RSA, the key can be computed from a few signatures. For Elliptic Curve (EC), two potential keys can be recovered from one signature. This can be used to bypass the signature mechanism if an application relies on asymmetrically signed tokens. This issue has been addressed in version 2.3.0 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. |
| There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC firmware validation logic at Supermicro MBD-X12STW . An attacker can update the system firmware with a specially crafted image. |
| OpenPGP.js is a JavaScript implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. Startinf in version 5.0.1 and prior to versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1, a maliciously modified message can be passed to either `openpgp.verify` or `openpgp.decrypt`, causing these functions to return a valid signature verification result while returning data that was not actually signed. This flaw allows signature verifications of inline (non-detached) signed messages (using `openpgp.verify`) and signed-and-encrypted messages (using `openpgp.decrypt` with `verificationKeys`) to be spoofed, since both functions return extracted data that may not match the data that was originally signed. Detached signature verifications are not affected, as no signed data is returned in that case. In order to spoof a message, the attacker needs a single valid message signature (inline or detached) as well as the plaintext data that was legitimately signed, and can then construct an inline-signed message or signed-and-encrypted message with any data of the attacker's choice, which will appear as legitimately signed by affected versions of OpenPGP.js. In other words, any inline-signed message can be modified to return any other data (while still indicating that the signature was valid), and the same is true for signed+encrypted messages if the attacker can obtain a valid signature and encrypt a new message (of the attacker's choice) together with that signature. The issue has been patched in versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1. Some workarounds are available. When verifying inline-signed messages, extract the message and signature(s) from the message returned by `openpgp.readMessage`, and verify the(/each) signature as a detached signature by passing the signature and a new message containing only the data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. When decrypting and verifying signed+encrypted messages, decrypt and verify the message in two steps, by first calling `openpgp.decrypt` without `verificationKeys`, and then passing the returned signature(s) and a new message containing the decrypted data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. |
