Total
581 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-65945 | 1 Auth0 | 1 Node-jws | 2025-12-05 | 7.5 High |
| auth0/node-jws is a JSON Web Signature implementation for Node.js. In versions 3.2.2 and earlier and version 4.0.0, auth0/node-jws has an improper signature verification vulnerability when using the HS256 algorithm under specific conditions. Applications are affected when they use the jws.createVerify() function for HMAC algorithms and use user-provided data from the JSON Web Signature protected header or payload in HMAC secret lookup routines, which can allow attackers to bypass signature verification. This issue has been patched in versions 3.2.3 and 4.0.1. | ||||
| CVE-2018-16152 | 3 Canonical, Debian, Strongswan | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Strongswan | 2025-12-03 | 7.5 High |
| In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data in the digestAlgorithm.parameters field during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Consequently, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication. This is a variant of CVE-2006-4790 and CVE-2014-1568. | ||||
| CVE-2018-16151 | 3 Canonical, Debian, Strongswan | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Strongswan | 2025-12-03 | 7.5 High |
| In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data after the encoded algorithm OID during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Similar to the flaw in the same version of strongSwan regarding digestAlgorithm.parameters, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication. | ||||
| CVE-2022-39366 | 1 Datahub | 1 Datahub | 2025-12-03 | 9.9 Critical |
| DataHub is an open-source metadata platform. Prior to version 0.8.45, the `StatelessTokenService` of the DataHub metadata service (GMS) does not verify the signature of JWT tokens. This allows an attacker to connect to DataHub instances as any user if Metadata Service authentication is enabled. This vulnerability occurs because the `StatelessTokenService` of the Metadata service uses the `parse` method of `io.jsonwebtoken.JwtParser`, which does not perform a verification of the cryptographic token signature. This means that JWTs are accepted regardless of the used algorithm. This issue may lead to an authentication bypass. Version 0.8.45 contains a patch for the issue. There are no known workarounds. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40934 | 1 Perl | 1 Xml::sig | 2025-12-01 | 9.3 Critical |
| XML-Sig versions 0.27 through 0.67 for Perl incorrectly validates XML files if signatures are omitted. An attacker can remove the signature from the XML document to make it pass the verification check. XML-Sig is a Perl module to validate signatures on XML files. An unsigned XML file should return an error message. The affected versions return true when attempting to validate an XML file that contains no signatures. | ||||
| CVE-2024-23680 | 1 Amazon | 1 Aws Encryption Sdk | 2025-11-29 | 5.3 Medium |
| AWS Encryption SDK for Java versions 2.0.0 to 2.2.0 and less than 1.9.0 incorrectly validates some invalid ECDSA signatures. | ||||
| CVE-2025-58356 | 1 Edgelesssys | 1 Constellation | 2025-11-28 | N/A |
| Constellation is the first Confidential Kubernetes. The Constellation CVM image uses LUKS2-encrypted volumes for persistent storage. When opening an encrypted storage device, the CVM uses the libcryptsetup function crypt_activate_by_passhrase. If the VM is successful in opening the partition with the disk encryption key, it treats the volume as confidential. However, due to the unsafe handling of null keyslot algorithms in the cryptsetup 2.8.1, it is possible that the opened volume is not encrypted at all. Cryptsetup prior to version 2.8.1 does not report an error when processing LUKS2-formatted disks that use the cipher_null-ecb algorithm in the keyslot encryption field. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.24.0. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48949 | 2 Indutny, Redhat | 7 Elliptic, Acm, Multicluster Engine and 4 more | 2025-11-25 | 9.1 Critical |
| The verify function in lib/elliptic/eddsa/index.js in the Elliptic package before 6.5.6 for Node.js omits "sig.S().gte(sig.eddsa.curve.n) || sig.S().isNeg()" validation. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48948 | 2 Indutny, Nodejs | 2 Elliptic, Elliptic | 2025-11-25 | 4.8 Medium |
| The Elliptic package 6.5.7 for Node.js, in its for ECDSA implementation, does not correctly verify valid signatures if the hash contains at least four leading 0 bytes and when the order of the elliptic curve's base point is smaller than the hash, because of an _truncateToN anomaly. This leads to valid signatures being rejected. Legitimate transactions or communications may be incorrectly flagged as invalid. | ||||
| CVE-2025-59288 | 2 Github, Microsoft | 3 Github, Azure Playwright, Playwright | 2025-11-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Github: Playwright allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over an adjacent network. | ||||
| CVE-2024-49394 | 3 Mutt, Neomutt, Redhat | 3 Mutt, Neomutt, Enterprise Linux | 2025-11-21 | 5.3 Medium |
| In mutt and neomutt the In-Reply-To email header field is not protected by cryptographic signing which allows an attacker to reuse an unencrypted but signed email message to impersonate the original sender. | ||||
| CVE-2025-64456 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Resharper | 2025-11-20 | 8.4 High |
| In JetBrains ReSharper before 2025.2.4 missing signature verification in DPA Collector allows local privilege escalation | ||||
| CVE-2024-49393 | 3 Mutt, Neomutt, Redhat | 3 Mutt, Neomutt, Enterprise Linux | 2025-11-20 | 6.5 Medium |
| In neomutt and mutt, the To and Cc email headers are not validated by cryptographic signing which allows an attacker that intercepts a message to change their value and include himself as a one of the recipients to compromise message confidentiality. | ||||
| CVE-2024-2307 | 1 Redhat | 1 Enterprise Linux | 2025-11-20 | 6.1 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2024-0567 | 5 Debian, Fedoraproject, Gnu and 2 more | 9 Debian Linux, Fedora, Gnutls and 6 more | 2025-11-20 | 7.5 High |
| A vulnerability was found in GnuTLS, where a cockpit (which uses gnuTLS) rejects a certificate chain with distributed trust. This issue occurs when validating a certificate chain with cockpit-certificate-ensure. This flaw allows an unauthenticated, remote client or attacker to initiate a denial of service attack. | ||||
| CVE-2023-3347 | 3 Fedoraproject, Redhat, Samba | 4 Fedora, Enterprise Linux, Storage and 1 more | 2025-11-20 | 5.9 Medium |
| A vulnerability was found in Samba's SMB2 packet signing mechanism. The SMB2 packet signing is not enforced if an admin configured "server signing = required" or for SMB2 connections to Domain Controllers where SMB2 packet signing is mandatory. This flaw allows an attacker to perform attacks, such as a man-in-the-middle attack, by intercepting the network traffic and modifying the SMB2 messages between client and server, affecting the integrity of the data. | ||||
| CVE-2025-34324 | 1 Tinexta Infocert | 1 Gosign Desktop | 2025-11-20 | N/A |
| GoSign Desktop versions 2.4.0 and earlier use an unsigned update manifest for distributing application updates. The manifest contains package URLs and SHA-256 hashes but is not digitally signed, so its authenticity relies solely on the underlying TLS channel. In affected versions, TLS certificate validation can be disabled when a proxy is configured, allowing an attacker who can intercept network traffic to supply a malicious update manifest and corresponding package with a matching hash. This can cause the client to download and install a tampered update, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the GoSign Desktop user on Windows and macOS, or with elevated privileges on some Linux deployments. A local attacker who can modify proxy settings may also abuse this behavior to escalate privileges by forcing installation of a crafted update. | ||||
| CVE-2024-8698 | 1 Redhat | 4 Build Keycloak, Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Red Hat Single Sign On and 1 more | 2025-11-20 | 7.7 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2023-2030 | 1 Gitlab | 1 Gitlab | 2025-11-20 | 3.5 Low |
| An issue has been discovered in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 12.2 prior to 16.5.6, 16.6 prior to 16.6.4, and 16.7 prior to 16.7.2 in which an attacker could potentially modify the metadata of signed commits. | ||||
| CVE-2024-13990 | 1 Microworld Technologies | 1 Escan | 2025-11-19 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||