| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Improper certificate validation in Network in Google Chrome on on Windows prior to 156.0.8078.47 allowed a remote attacker to leak sensitive information via crafted network traffic. (Chromium security severity: High) |
| A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in iOS 26.7.2 and iPadOS 26.7.2, iOS 27.2 and iPadOS 27.2, macOS Golden Gate 27.2, macOS Sequoia 15.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.7.2, visionOS 27.2. An malicious app may be able to bypass certificate validation. |
| This vulnerability exists in the iRA 2.0 and iRA.ev mobile applications due to improper implementation of SSL certificate pinning in the network security configuration, resulting in ineffective certificate pinning controls. An attacker positioned to intercept network traffic could exploit this vulnerability to intercept or modify communications between the application and its backend services. |
| The system certificate authority (CA) store in Red Hat products, distributed via ca-certificates RPM packages, included multiple root CA certificates of authorities, which signed intermediate CA certificates with weak private keys issued by the eMudhra certificate authority. A man-in-the-middle attacker could use this flaw to issue certificates for arbitrary host names signed by the weak intermediate CA certificates, which would be considered trusted by a TLS/SSL client using system CA store and cause such clients to connect to malicious sites.
Due to inability to only distrust specific intermediate certificates in all clients using the system CA store, root CA certificates of authorities that signed weak intermediate CA certificates are being removed. |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 does not reject a critical keyUsage extension when it cannot be processed, such as when extnValue is an ASN.1 NULL (05 00) instead of a BIT STRING. NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. |
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 does not properly enforce name constraints, as demonstrated by a permitted subtree violation for "EE O=Evil accepted although outside permitted O=Good." NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. |
| In GnuTLS v3.8.13, an excluded msUPN/SRV otherName is never checked. NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 can perhaps unexpectedly trust a certificate on the basis of Common Name when Subject Alternative Name has an SRV otherName (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.7) whose value is an OCTET STRING. NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. |
| GnuTLS v3.8.13 does not reject end-entity X.509 certificates that contain a contradictory combination of Key Usage (KU) and Extended Key Usage (EKU). NOTE: the Supplier does not consider this an actionable security vulnerability because of its "threat model doesn't consider attacks only possible by modifying anything within the trust boundary (private keys, trusted certificate authorities and their issued certificates including intermediate CAs, etc.)" policy. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability exists in HPE Networking Fabric Composer. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker, under certain preconditions outside the attacker's control, to obtain sensitive information, including credentials. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability in HPE Networking Fabric Composer could allow an unauthenticated adjacent attacker to intercept communications between the affected system and remote servers if certain preconditions outside of the attacker's control are met. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability in HPE Networking Fabric Composer could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to access sensitive information if certain preconditions outside of the attacker's control are met. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information, including credentials. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability in the API of HPE Networking Fabric Composer could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to circumvent existing authentication controls if certain preconditions outside of the attacker's control are met. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to the affected system. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability in HPE Networking Fabric Composer could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to access sensitive information if certain preconditions outside of the attacker's control are met. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to intercept transferred files and the stored credentials for remote servers. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability exists in the API of HPE Networking Fabric Composer. Successful exploitation could allow an unauthenticated adjacent attacker to access sensitive information. |
| Forge (also called node-forge) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to 1.4.1, the affected implementation used pki.verifyCertificateChain(), pki.createCaStore(), duplicate subject names to process the relevant input or security decision. node-forge modified the CA store while trying certificates that shared a subject name during pki.verifyCertificateChain(). A failed chain verification could permanently remove trusted CA certificates from the store, causing later valid chains to fail and creating a persistent availability impact for applications that reused the store. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1. |
| IBM AIX 7.2, and 7.3 and IBM PowerVM VIOS 4.1 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code due to improper certificate validation. |
| Nanosystems Supremo for Windows and macOS before 5.0.2.3874 contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability that allows adjacent attackers to intercept TLS connections by presenting untrusted certificates. Attackers on the same network can terminate and relay the client's TLS session using self-signed certificates to read usernames, SHA-256 password hashes, and license codes. |
| Tanium addressed an improper certificate validation vulnerability in multiple products. Products have been updated to distrust several intermediate CA certificates associated with compromised private keys. |
