Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Versions 2.0.5 and below contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the VerifyTimestampResponse function. VerifyTimestampResponse correctly...Show moreSigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Versions 2.0.5 and below contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the VerifyTimestampResponse function. VerifyTimestampResponse correctly verifies the certificate chain signature, but the TSA-specific constraint checks in VerifyLeafCert uses the first non-CA certificate from the PKCS#7 certificate bag instead of the leaf certificate from the verified chain. An attacker can exploit this by prepending a forged certificate to the certificate bag while the message is signed with an authorized key, causing the library to validate the signature against one certificate but perform authorization checks against another. This vulnerability only affects users of the timestamp-authority/v2/pkg/verification package and does not affect the timestamp-authority service itself or sigstore-go. The issue has been fixed in version 2.0.6.Show less |
A vulnerability has been identified in Siemens Software Center (All versions < V3.5.8.2), Simcenter 3D (All versions < V2506.6000), Simcenter Femap (All versions < V2506.0002), Simcenter STAR-CCM+ (All versions < V2602),...Show moreA vulnerability has been identified in Siemens Software Center (All versions < V3.5.8.2), Simcenter 3D (All versions < V2506.6000), Simcenter Femap (All versions < V2506.0002), Simcenter STAR-CCM+ (All versions < V2602), Solid Edge SE2025 (All versions < V225.0 Update 13), Solid Edge SE2026 (All versions < V226.0 Update 04), Tecnomatix Plant Simulation (All versions < V2504.0008). Affected applications do not properly validate client certificates to connect to Analytics Service endpoint. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to perform man in the middle attacks.Show less |
A certificate validation vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Autonomous Digital Experience Manager on Windows allows an unauthenticated attacker with adjacent network access to execute arbitrary code with NT AUTHORITY\SY...Show moreA certificate validation vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks Autonomous Digital Experience Manager on Windows allows an unauthenticated attacker with adjacent network access to execute arbitrary code with NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM privileges.Show less |
The fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j...Show moreThe fix for CVE-2025-68161 https://logging.apache.org/security.html#CVE-2025-68161 was incomplete: it addressed hostname verification only when enabled via the log4j2.sslVerifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/systemproperties.html#log4j2.sslVerifyHostName system property, but not when configured through the verifyHostName https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#SslConfiguration-attr-verifyHostName attribute of the <Ssl> element.
Although the verifyHostName configuration attribute was introduced in Log4j Core 2.12.0, it was silently ignored in all versions through 2.25.3, leaving TLS connections vulnerable to interception regardless of the configured value.
A network-based attacker may be able to perform a man-in-the-middle attack when all of the following conditions are met:
* An SMTP, Socket, or Syslog appender is in use.
* TLS is configured via a nested <Ssl> element.
* The attacker can present a certificate issued by a CA trusted by the appender's configured trust store, or by the default Java trust store if none is configured.
This issue does not affect users of the HTTP appender, which uses a separate verifyHostname https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/appenders/network.html#HttpAppender-attr-verifyHostName attribute that was not subject to this bug and verifies host names by default.
Users are advised to upgrade to Apache Log4j Core 2.25.4, which corrects this issue.Show less |
wolfSSL_X509_verify_cert in the OpenSSL compatibility layer accepts a certificate chain in which the leaf's signature is not checked, if the attacker supplies an untrusted intermediate with Basic Constraints `CA:FALSE` t...Show morewolfSSL_X509_verify_cert in the OpenSSL compatibility layer accepts a certificate chain in which the leaf's signature is not checked, if the attacker supplies an untrusted intermediate with Basic Constraints `CA:FALSE` that is legitimately signed by a trusted root. An attacker who obtains any leaf certificate from a trusted CA (e.g. a free DV cert from Let's Encrypt) can forge a certificate for any subject name with any public key and arbitrary signature bytes, and the function returns `WOLFSSL_SUCCESS` / `X509_V_OK`. The native wolfSSL TLS handshake path (`ProcessPeerCerts`) is not susceptible and the issue is limited to applications using the OpenSSL compatibility API directly, which would include integrations of wolfSSL into nginx and haproxy.Show less |
URI nameConstraints from constrained intermediate CAs are parsed but not enforced during certificate chain verification in wolfcrypt/src/asn.c. A compromised or malicious sub-CA could issue leaf certificates with URI SAN...Show moreURI nameConstraints from constrained intermediate CAs are parsed but not enforced during certificate chain verification in wolfcrypt/src/asn.c. A compromised or malicious sub-CA could issue leaf certificates with URI SAN entries that violate the nameConstraints of the issuing CA, and wolfSSL would accept them as valid.Show less |
Missing hash/digest size and OID checks allow digests smaller than allowed when verifying ECDSA certificates, or smaller than is appropriate for the relevant key type, to be accepted by signature verification functions....Show moreMissing hash/digest size and OID checks allow digests smaller than allowed when verifying ECDSA certificates, or smaller than is appropriate for the relevant key type, to be accepted by signature verification functions. This could lead to reduced security of ECDSA certificate-based authentication if the public CA key used is also known. This affects ECDSA/ECC verification when EdDSA or ML-DSA is also enabled.Show less |
dde-control-center is the control panel of DDE, the Deepin Desktop Environment. plugin-deepinid is a plugin in dde-control-center, which provides the deepinid cloud service. Prior to 6.1.80, plugin-deepinid is configured...Show moredde-control-center is the control panel of DDE, the Deepin Desktop Environment. plugin-deepinid is a plugin in dde-control-center, which provides the deepinid cloud service. Prior to 6.1.80, plugin-deepinid is configured to skip TLS certificate verification when fetching the user's avatar from openapi.deepin.com or other providers. An MITM attacker could intercept the traffic, replace the avatar with a malicious or misleading image, and potentially identify the user by the avatar. This vulnerability is fixed in dde-control-center 6.1.80 and 5.9.9.Show less |
rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to 1.0.6, an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client's signature verification allows any attacker to...Show morerfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to 1.0.6, an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client's signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target common_name and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.6.Show less |
When verifying a certificate chain containing excluded DNS constraints, these constraints are not correctly applied to wildcard DNS SANs which use a different case than the constraint. This only affects validation of oth...Show moreWhen verifying a certificate chain containing excluded DNS constraints, these constraints are not correctly applied to wildcard DNS SANs which use a different case than the constraint. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in the VerifyOptions.Roots CertPool, or in the system certificate pool.Show less |
Validating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation...Show moreValidating certificate chains which use policies is unexpectedly inefficient when certificates in the chain contain a very large number of policy mappings, possibly causing denial of service. This only affects validation of otherwise trusted certificate chains, issued by a root CA in the VerifyOptions.Roots CertPool, or in the system certificate pool.Show less |
Botan is a C++ cryptography library. In 3.11.0, the function Certificate_Store::certificate_known had a misleading name; it would return true if any certificate in the store had a DN (and subject key identifier, if set)...Show moreBotan is a C++ cryptography library. In 3.11.0, the function Certificate_Store::certificate_known had a misleading name; it would return true if any certificate in the store had a DN (and subject key identifier, if set) matching that of the argument. It did not check that the cert it found and the cert it was passed were actually the same certificate. In 3.11.0 an extension of path validation logic was made which assumed that certificate_known only returned true if the certificates were in fact identical. The impact is that if an end entity certificate is presented, and its DN (and subject key identifier, if set) match that of any trusted root, the end entity certificate is accepted immediately as if it itself were a trusted root. , This vulnerability is fixed in 3.11.1.Show less |
A flaw was found in Open Cluster Management (OCM), the technology underlying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management (ACM). Improper validation of Kubernetes client certificate renewal allows a managed cluster administrator...Show moreA flaw was found in Open Cluster Management (OCM), the technology underlying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Management (ACM). Improper validation of Kubernetes client certificate renewal allows a managed cluster administrator to forge a client certificate that can be approved by the OCM controller. This enables cross-cluster privilege escalation and may allow an attacker to gain control over other managed clusters, including the hub cluster.Show less |
Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.
The OCSP response validation in publi...Show moreImproper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.
The OCSP response validation in public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 does not verify that a CA-designated responder certificate was cryptographically signed by the issuing CA. Instead, it only checks that the responder certificate's issuer name matches the CA's subject name and that the certificate has the OCSPSigning extended key usage. An attacker who can intercept or control OCSP responses can create a self-signed certificate with a matching issuer name and the OCSPSigning EKU, and use it to forge OCSP responses that mark revoked certificates as valid.
This affects SSL/TLS clients using OCSP stapling, which may accept connections to servers with revoked certificates, potentially transmitting sensitive data to compromised servers. Applications using the public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 API directly are also affected, with impact depending on usage context.
This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 27.0 before OTP 28.4.2 and OTP 27.3.4.10, corresponding to public_key from 1.16 before 1.20.3 and 1.17.1.2, and ssl from 11.2 before 11.5.4 and 11.2.12.7.Show less |
Bulwark Webmail is a self-hosted webmail client for Stalwart Mail Server. Prior to 1.4.11, S/MIME signature verification did not validate the certificate trust chain (checkChain: false). Any email signed with a self-sign...Show moreBulwark Webmail is a self-hosted webmail client for Stalwart Mail Server. Prior to 1.4.11, S/MIME signature verification did not validate the certificate trust chain (checkChain: false). Any email signed with a self-signed or untrusted certificate was displayed as having a valid signature. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.4.11.Show less |
Improper certificate validation in the identity provider connection components in Amazon Athena ODBC driver before 2.1.0.0 might allow a man-in-the-middle threat actor to intercept authentication credentials due to insuf...Show moreImproper certificate validation in the identity provider connection components in Amazon Athena ODBC driver before 2.1.0.0 might allow a man-in-the-middle threat actor to intercept authentication credentials due to insufficient default transport security when connecting to identity providers. This only applies to connections with external identity providers and does not apply to connections with Athena.
To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to version 2.1.0.0.Show less |
SEPPmail Secure Email Gateway before version 15.0.3 allows an attacker to cause attacker-controlled certificates to be used for future encryption to a victim by adding the certificates to S/MIME signatures. |
Mbed TLS v3.3.0 up to 3.6.5 and 4.0.0 allows Algorithm Downgrade. |
A vulnerability in the configuration backup feature of Cisco Nexus Dashboard could allow an attacker who has the encryption password and access to Full or Config-only backup files to access sensitive information.
This...Show moreA vulnerability in the configuration backup feature of Cisco Nexus Dashboard could allow an attacker who has the encryption password and access to Full or Config-only backup files to access sensitive information.
This vulnerability exists because authentication details are included in the encrypted backup files. An attacker with a valid backup file and encryption password from an affected device could decrypt the backup file. The attacker could then use the authentication details in the backup file to access internal-only APIs on the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system as the root user.Show less |
A vulnerability was identified in Juju from version 3.2.0 until 3.6.19 and from version 4.0 until 4.0.4, where the internal Dqlite database cluster fails to perform proper TLS client and server authentication. Specifical...Show moreA vulnerability was identified in Juju from version 3.2.0 until 3.6.19 and from version 4.0 until 4.0.4, where the internal Dqlite database cluster fails to perform proper TLS client and server authentication. Specifically, the Juju controller's database endpoint does not validate client certificates when a new node attempts to join the cluster. An unauthenticated attacker with network reachability to the Juju controller's Dqlite port can exploit this flaw to join the database cluster. Once joined, the attacker gains full read and write access to the underlying database, allowing for total data compromise.Show less |