| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| An issue in code signature validation was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Big Sur 11.7, macOS Ventura 13, iOS 16, iOS 15.7 and iPadOS 15.7, macOS Monterey 12.6. An app may be able to bypass code signing checks. |
| immudb is a database with built-in cryptographic proof and verification. In versions prior to 1.4.1, a malicious immudb server can provide a falsified proof that will be accepted by the client SDK signing a falsified transaction replacing the genuine one. This situation can not be triggered by a genuine immudb server and requires the client to perform a specific list of verified operations resulting in acceptance of an invalid state value. This vulnerability only affects immudb client SDKs, the immudb server itself is not affected by this vulnerability. This issue has been patched in version 1.4.1. |
| A vulnerability identified in the Tailscale Windows client allows a malicious website to reconfigure the Tailscale daemon `tailscaled`, which can then be used to remotely execute code. In the Tailscale Windows client, the local API was bound to a local TCP socket, and communicated with the Windows client GUI in cleartext with no Host header verification. This allowed an attacker-controlled website visited by the node to rebind DNS to an attacker-controlled DNS server, and then make local API requests in the client, including changing the coordination server to an attacker-controlled coordination server. An attacker-controlled coordination server can send malicious URL responses to the client, including pushing executables or installing an SMB share. These allow the attacker to remotely execute code on the node. All Windows clients prior to version v.1.32.3 are affected. If you are running Tailscale on Windows, upgrade to v1.32.3 or later to remediate the issue. |
| A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI manifests are listings of relevant files that clients are supposed to verify. Assuming everything else is correct, the most recent version of a manifest should be prioritized over other versions, to prevent replays, accidental or otherwise. Manifests contain the manifestNumber and thisUpdate fields, which can be used to gauge the relevance of a given manifest, when compared to other manifests. The former is a serial-like sequential number, and the latter is the date on which the manifest was created. However, the product does not compare the up-to-dateness of the most recently fetched manifest against the cached manifest. As such, it's prone to a rollback to a previous version if it's served a valid outdated manifest. This leads to outdated route origin validation. |
| An issue was discovered in Technitium through 11.0.3. It enables attackers to conduct a DNS cache poisoning attack and inject fake responses within 1 second, which is impactful. |
| Inappropriate implementation in Navigations in Google Chrome prior to 135.0.7049.52 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to bypass same origin policy via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Safari 16.2, tvOS 16.2, iCloud for Windows 14.1, iOS 15.7.2 and iPadOS 15.7.2, macOS Ventura 13.1, iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2, watchOS 9.2. Processing maliciously crafted web content may bypass Same Origin Policy. |
| The vulnerability is that IDToken verifier does not verify if token is properly signed. Signature verification makes sure that the token's payload comes from valid provider, not from someone else. An attacker can provide a compromised token with custom payload. The token will pass the validation on the client side. We recommend upgrading to version 1.33.3 or above |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for Jitsi 2.5.5061 - 2.9.5544. |
| Siemens LOGO! Soft Comfort (All versions before V8.2) lacks integrity verification of software packages downloaded via an unprotected communication channel. This could allow a remote attacker to manipulate the software package while performing a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for Converse.js (0.8.0 - 1.0.6, 2.0.0 - 2.0.4). |
| The DynamicMetadataProvider class in saml/saml2/metadata/impl/DynamicMetadataProvider.cpp in OpenSAML-C in OpenSAML before 2.6.1 fails to properly configure itself with the MetadataFilter plugins and does not perform critical security checks such as signature verification, enforcement of validity periods, and other checks specific to deployments, aka CPPOST-105. |
| Vulnerability in the Java SE, Java SE Embedded component of Oracle Java SE (subcomponent: Libraries). Supported versions that are affected are Java SE: 6u161, 7u151, 8u144 and 9; Java SE Embedded: 8u144. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via Kerberos to compromise Java SE, Java SE Embedded. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Java SE, Java SE Embedded. Note: Applies to the Java SE Kerberos client. CVSS 3.0 Base Score 7.5 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). |
| Microsoft Edge in Microsoft Windows 10 Gold, 1511, 1607, and 1703, and Windows Server 2016 allows an attacker to trick a user into loading a page with malicious content when Microsoft Edge fails to correctly apply Same Origin Policy for HTML elements present in other browser windows, aka "Microsoft Edge Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability". This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2017-8530 and CVE-2017-8555. |
| IBM Security Access Manager for Web processes patches, image backups and other updates without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code, which could allow an authenticated attacker to load malicious code. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for yaxim and Bruno (0.8.6 - 0.8.8; Android). |
| jwt-scala 1.2.2 and earlier fails to verify token signatures correctly which may lead to an attacker being able to pass specially crafted JWT data as a correctly signed token. |
| RubyGems version 2.6.12 and earlier is vulnerable to a DNS hijacking vulnerability that allows a MITM attacker to force the RubyGems client to download and install gems from a server that the attacker controls. |
| A vulnerability in Cisco NX-OS System Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to bypass signature verification when loading a software patch. The vulnerability is due to insufficient NX-OS signature verification for software patches. An authenticated, local attacker could exploit this vulnerability to bypass signature verification and load a crafted, unsigned software patch on a targeted device. The attacker would need valid administrator credentials to perform this exploit. This vulnerability affects the following products running Cisco NX-OS System Software: Multilayer Director Switches, Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Nexus 7700 Series Switches, Unified Computing System Manager. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf16494, CSCvf23655. |
| An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. In a variant of CVE-2017-17847, signature spoofing is possible for multipart/related messages because a signed message part can be referenced with a cid: URI but not actually displayed. In other words, the entire containing message appears to be signed, but the recipient does not see any of the signed text. |
