| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Improper authentication in the API authentication middleware of HCL DevOps Loop allows authentication tokens to be accepted without proper validation of their expiration and cryptographic signature. As a result, an attacker could potentially use expired or tampered tokens to gain unauthorized access to sensitive resources and perform actions with elevated privileges. |
| Clerk helps developers build user management. Applications that use the verifyWebhook() helper to verify incoming Clerk webhooks are susceptible to accepting improperly signed webhook events. The issue was resolved in @clerk/backend 2.4.0. |
| Movable Type contains an issue with use of less trusted source. If exploited, tampered email to reset a password may be sent by a remote unauthenticated attacker. |
| 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`. |
| Hosts listed in TrustedOrigins implicitly allow requests from the corresponding HTTP origins, allowing network MitMs to perform CSRF attacks. After the CVE-2025-24358 fix, a network attacker that places a form at http://example.com can't get it to submit to https://example.com because the Origin header is checked with sameOrigin against a synthetic URL. However, if a host is added to TrustedOrigins, both its HTTP and HTTPS origins will be allowed, because the schema of the synthetic URL is ignored and only the host is checked. For example, if an application is hosted on https://example.com and adds example.net to TrustedOrigins, a network attacker can serve a form at http://example.net to perform the attack. Applications should migrate to net/http.CrossOriginProtection, introduced in Go 1.25. If that is not an option, a backport is available as a module at filippo.io/csrf, and a drop-in replacement for the github.com/gorilla/csrf API is available at filippo.io/csrf/gorilla. |
| The optional feature 'Anti-Virus & Sandbox' of i-FILTER contains an issue with improper pattern file validation. If exploited, the product may treat an unauthorized pattern file as an authorized. If the product uses a specially crafted pattern file, information in the server where the product is running may be retrieved, and/or cause a denial of service (DoS) condition. |
| The LOGIN AND REGISTRATION ATTEMPTS LIMIT plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to IP Address Spoofing in versions up to, and including, 2.1. This is due to insufficient restrictions on where the IP Address information is being retrieved for request logging and login restrictions. Attackers can supply the X-Forwarded-For header with with a different IP Address that will be logged and can be used to bypass settings that may have blocked out an IP address from logging in. |
| The Limit Login Attempts (Spam Protection) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to IP Address Spoofing in versions up to, and including, 5.3. This is due to insufficient restrictions on where the IP Address information is being retrieved for request logging and login restrictions. Attackers can supply the X-Forwarded-For header with with a different IP Address that will be logged and can be used to bypass settings that may have blocked out an IP address or country from logging in. |
| In specific circumstances, due to a weakness in the Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) that is used, it is possible for an attacker to predict the source port and query ID that BIND will use.
This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.39, 9.20.0 through 9.20.13, 9.21.0 through 9.21.12, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.39-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.13-S1. |
| Under certain circumstances, BIND is too lenient when accepting records from answers, allowing an attacker to inject forged data into the cache.
This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.39, 9.20.0 through 9.20.13, 9.21.0 through 9.21.12, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.39-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.13-S1. |
| An unauthenticated remote attacker is able to use an existing session id of a logged in user and gain full access to the device if configuration via ethernet is enabled. |
| 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. |
| A `named` caching resolver that is configured to send ECS (EDNS Client Subnet) options may be vulnerable to a cache-poisoning attack.
This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.37-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.10-S1. |
| Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model. |
| Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units. |
| A Generation of Predictable Numbers or Identifiers vulnerability in the SDM component of B&R Automation Runtime versions before 6.4 may allow an unauthenticated network-based attacker to take over already established sessions. |
| eGovFramework/egovframe-common-components versions up to and including 4.3.1 includes Web Editor image upload and related file delivery functionality that uses symmetric encryption to protect URL parameters, but exposes an encryption oracle that allows attackers to generate valid ciphertext for chosen values. The image upload endpoints /utl/wed/insertImage.do and /utl/wed/insertImageCk.do encrypt server-side paths, filenames, and MIME types and embed them directly into a download URL that is returned to the client. Because these same encrypted parameters are trusted by other endpoints, such as /utl/web/imageSrc.do and /cmm/fms/getImage.do, an unauthenticated attacker can abuse the upload functionality to obtain encrypted representations of attacker-chosen identifiers and then replay those ciphertext values to file-serving APIs. This design failure allows an attacker to bypass access controls that rely solely on the secrecy of encrypted parameters and retrieve arbitrary stored files that are otherwise expected to require an existing session or specific authorization context. KISA/KrCERT has identified this unpatched vulnerability as "KVE-2023-5281." |
| The OpenSAML C++ library before 3.3.1 allows forging of signed SAML messages via parameter manipulation (when using SAML bindings that rely on non-XML signatures). |
| fast-jwt provides fast JSON Web Token (JWT) implementation. Prior to 5.0.6, the fast-jwt library does not properly validate the iss claim based on the RFC 7519. The iss (issuer) claim validation within the fast-jwt library permits an array of strings as a valid iss value. This design flaw enables a potential attack where a malicious actor crafts a JWT with an iss claim structured as ['https://attacker-domain/', 'https://valid-iss']. Due to the permissive validation, the JWT will be deemed valid. Furthermore, if the application relies on external libraries like get-jwks that do not independently validate the iss claim, the attacker can leverage this vulnerability to forge a JWT that will be accepted by the victim application. Essentially, the attacker can insert their own domain into the iss array, alongside the legitimate issuer, and bypass the intended security checks. This issue is fixed in 5.0.6. |
| An insufficiently secured internal function allows session generation for arbitrary users. The decodeParam function checks the JWT but does not verify which signing algorithm was used. As a result, an attacker can use the "ex:action" parameter in the VerifyUserByThrustedService function to generate a session for any user. |
