| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| MSI Center before 2.0.52.0 has Missing PE Signature Validation. |
| There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC firmware validation logic at Supermicro MBD-X12STW-F . An attacker can update the system firmware with a specially crafted image. |
| 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. |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature in Zscaler's SAML authentication mechanism on the server-side allowed an authentication abuse. |
| Node-SAML is a SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In versions 5.0.1 and below, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. This issue is fixed in version 5.1.0. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| The implementation of EdDSA in EdDSA-Java (aka ed25519-java) through 0.3.0 exhibits signature malleability and does not satisfy the SUF-CMA (Strong Existential Unforgeability under Chosen Message Attacks) property. This allows attackers to create new valid signatures different from previous signatures for a known message. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| A potential vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo 510 FHD and Performance FHD web cameras that could allow an attacker with physical access to write arbitrary firmware updates to the device over a USB connection. |
| 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. |
| A SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In version 5.0.1, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. To conduct the attack an attacker would need a validly signed document from the identity provider (IdP). This is fixed in version 5.1.0. |
| 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. |
| Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) 13.0.x before 13.0.385, 13.1.x before 13.1.81, 13.2.x before 13.2.183, 14.0.x before 14.0.341 (Patch 5), and 14.1.x before 14.1.101 (Patch 4) allows unauthenticated users to upload backup files to the system. While signature validation is implemented, weaknesses in the validation process can be exploited to upload malicious backup content that could compromise system integrity. |
| Cryptographic validation of upgrade images could be circumventing by dropping a specifically crafted file into the upgrade ISO |
| 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. |
| Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious CPU microcode resulting in loss of confidentiality and integrity of a confidential guest running under AMD SEV-SNP. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
