| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. |
| The SimpleSAMLphp SAML2 library is a PHP library for SAML2 related functionality. Prior to versions 4.17.0 and 5.0.0-alpha.20, there is a signature confusion attack in the HTTPRedirect binding. An attacker with any signed SAMLResponse via the HTTP-Redirect binding can cause the application to accept an unsigned message. Versions 4.17.0 and 5.0.0-alpha.20 contain a fix for the issue. |
| aes-gcm is a pure Rust implementation of the AES-GCM. In decrypt_in_place_detached, the decrypted ciphertext (which is the correct ciphertext) is exposed even if the tag is incorrect. This is because in decrypt_inplace in asconcore.rs, tag verification causes an error to be returned with the plaintext contents still in buffer. The vulnerability is fixed in 0.4.3. |
| 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. |
| A flaw exists in the SAML signature validation method within the Keycloak XMLSignatureUtil class. The method incorrectly determines whether a SAML signature is for the full document or only for specific assertions based on the position of the signature in the XML document, rather than the Reference element used to specify the signed element. This flaw allows attackers to create crafted responses that can bypass the validation, potentially leading to privilege escalation or impersonation attacks. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature during installation of a Printer driver via the TeamViewer_service.exe component of TeamViewer Remote Clients prior version 15.58.4 for Windows allows an attacker with local unprivileged access on a Windows system to elevate their privileges and install drivers. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature during installation of a VPN driver via the TeamViewer_service.exe component of TeamViewer Remote Clients prior version 15.58.4 for Windows allows an attacker with local unprivileged access on a Windows system to elevate their privileges and install drivers. |
| 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. |
| tiny-secp256k1 is a tiny secp256k1 native/JS wrapper. Prior to version 1.1.7, a malicious JSON-stringifyable message can be made passing on verify(), when global Buffer is the buffer package. This affects only environments where require('buffer') is the NPM buffer package. Buffer.isBuffer check can be bypassed, resulting in strange objects being accepted as a message, and those messages could trick verify() into returning false-positive true values. This issue has been patched in version 1.1.7. |
| The firmware upgrade function in the admin web interface of the Rittal IoT Interface & CMC III Processing Unit devices checks if
the patch files are signed before executing the containing run.sh
script. The signing process is kind of an HMAC with a long string as key
which is hard-coded in the firmware and is freely available for
download. This allows crafting malicious "signed" .patch files in order
to compromise the device and execute arbitrary code. |
| 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. |
| Applications that use spring-boot-loader or spring-boot-loader-classic and contain custom code that performs signature verification of nested jar files may be vulnerable to signature forgery where content that appears to have been signed by one signer has, in fact, been signed by another. |
| 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. |
| Improper verification of the digital signature in ksojscore.dll in Kingsoft WPS Office in versions equal or less than 12.1.0.18276
on Windows allows an attacker to load an arbitrary Windows library. The patch released in version 12.2.0.16909 to mitigate CVE-2024-7262 was not restrictive enough. |
| There is a vulnerability in the BMC firmware image authentication design
at Supermicro MBD-X12DPG-OA6
. An attacker can modify the firmware to bypass BMC inspection and bypass the signature verification process |
| Ever Gauzy v0.281.9 contains a JWT authentication vulnerability that allows attackers to exploit weak HMAC secret key implementation. Attackers can leverage the exposed JWT token to authenticate and gain unauthorized access with administrative permissions. |
| In the CryptX module before 0.062 for Perl, gcm_decrypt_verify() and chacha20poly1305_decrypt_verify() do not verify the tag. |
| ALTCHA is privacy-first software for captcha and bot protection. A cryptographic semantic binding flaw in ALTCHA libraries allows challenge payload splicing, which may enable replay attacks. The HMAC signature does not unambiguously bind challenge parameters to the nonce, allowing an attacker to reinterpret a valid proof-of-work submission with a modified expiration value. This may allow previously solved challenges to be reused beyond their intended lifetime, depending on server-side replay handling and deployment assumptions. The vulnerability primarily impacts abuse-prevention mechanisms such as rate limiting and bot mitigation. It does not directly affect data confidentiality or integrity. This issue has been addressed by enforcing explicit semantic separation between challenge parameters and the nonce during HMAC computation. Users are advised to upgrade to patched versions, which include version 1.0.0 of the altcha Golang package, version 1.0.0 of the altcha Rubygem, version 1.0.0 of the altcha pip package, version 1.0.0 of the altcha Erlang package, version 1.4.1 of the altcha-lib npm package, version 1.3.1 of the altcha-org/altcha Composer package, and version 1.3.0 of the org.altcha:altcha Maven package. As a mitigation, implementations may append a delimiter to the end of the `salt` value prior to HMAC computation (for example, `<salt>?expires=<time>&`). This prevents ambiguity between parameters and the nonce and is backward-compatible with existing implementations, as the delimiter is treated as a standard URL parameter separator. |
| Improper fingerprint validation in the TeamViewer Client (Full & Host) prior Version 15.54 for Windows and macOS allows an attacker with administrative user rights to further elevate privileges via executable sideloading. |
| A vulnerability in the installation process of Cisco IOS XR Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to bypass Cisco IOS XR Software image signature verification and load unsigned software on an affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have root-system privileges on the affected device.
This vulnerability is due to incomplete validation of files during the installation of an .iso file. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by modifying contents of the .iso image and then installing and activating it on the device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to load an unsigned file as part of the image activation process. |
