| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| ABB is aware of privately reported vulnerabilities in the product versions referenced in this CVE. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending a specially crafted firmware or configuration to the system node, causing the node to stop, become inaccessible, or allowing the attacker to take control of the node. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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`. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| MicroWorld eScan AV's update mechanism failed to ensure authenticity and integrity of updates: update packages were delivered and accepted without robust cryptographic verification. As a result, an on-path attacker could perform a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack and substitute malicious update payloads for legitimate ones. The eScan AV client accepted these substituted packages and executed or loaded their components (including sideloaded DLLs and Java/installer payloads), enabling remote code execution on affected systems. MicroWorld eScan confirmed remediation of the update mechanism on 2023-07-31 but versioning details are unavailable. NOTE: MicroWorld eScan disputes the characterization in third-party reports, stating the issue relates to 2018–2019 and that controls were implemented then. |
| MSI Center before 2.0.52.0 has Missing PE Signature Validation. |
| 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. |
| Hyperbridge is a hyper-scalable coprocessor for verifiable, cross-chain interoperability. A critical vulnerability was discovered in the ismp-grandpa crate, that allowed a malicious prover easily convince the verifier of the finality of arbitrary headers. This could be used to steal funds or compromise other kinds of cross-chain applications. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.0.1. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in HYPR Passwordless on Windows allows Malicious Software Update.This issue affects HYPR Passwordless: before 9.1. |
| Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious microcode, potentially resulting in loss of integrity of x86 instruction execution, loss of confidentiality and integrity of data in x86 CPU privileged context and compromise of SMM execution environment. |
| 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. |
