Improper Certificate Validation

A vulnerability in the SSL/TLS implementation of Cisco Nexus Dashboard Orchestrator (NDO) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to intercept sensitive information from an affected device.  This vulnerability exists because the Cisco NDO Validate Peer Certificate site management feature validates the certificates for Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC), Cisco Cloud Network Controller (CNC), and Cisco Nexus Dashboard only when a new site is added or an existing one is reregistered. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by using machine-in-the-middle techniques to intercept the traffic between the affected device and Cisco NDO and then using a crafted certificate to impersonate the affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to learn sensitive information during communications between these devices.Show less

IBM Storage Defender 2.0.0 through 2.0.7 on-prem defender-sensor-cmd CLI does not validate server name during registration and unregistration operations which could expose sensitive information to an attacker with access to the system.Show less

The Planet Fitness Workouts iOS and Android mobile apps fail to properly validate TLS certificates, allowing an attacker with appropriate network access to obtain session tokens and sensitive information. Planet Fitness first addressed this vulnerability in version 9.8.12 (released on 2024-07-25) and more recently in version 9.9.13 (released on 2025-02-11).Show less

Anbox Management Service, in versions 1.17.0 through 1.23.0, does not validate the TLS certificate provided to it by the Anbox Stream Agent. An attacker must be able to machine-in-the-middle the Anbox Stream Agent from within an internal network before they can attempt to take advantage of this.Show less

When curl is told to use the Certificate Status Request TLS extension, often referred to as OCSP stapling, to verify that the server certificate is valid, it might fail to detect some OCSP problems and instead wrongly consider the response as fine. If the returned status reports another error than 'revoked' (like for example 'unauthorized') it is not treated as a bad certficate.Show less

AAn improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiClientWindows 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.11, FortiClientLinux 7.2.0, 7.0.0 through 7.0.11 and FortiClientMac 7.0.0 through 7.0.11, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4 may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the FortiGate and the FortiClient during the ZTNA tunnel creationShow less

An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiClientWindows 6.4 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, FortiClientMac 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiClientLinux 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiClientAndroid 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 and FortiClientiOS 5.6 all versions, 6.0.0 through 6.0.1, 7.0.0 through 7.0.6 SAML SSO feature may allow an unauthenticated attacker to man-in-the-middle the communication between the FortiClient and  both the service provider and the identity provider.Show less

An improper certificate validation vulnerability has been reported to affect QuMagie. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow local network users to compromise the security of the system via unspecified vectors. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: QuMagie 2.3.1 and laterShow less

An issue was discovered in Mbed TLS 3.x before 3.6.1. With TLS 1.3, when a server enables optional authentication of the client, if the client-provided certificate does not have appropriate values in if keyUsage or extKeyUsage extensions, then the return value of mbedtls_ssl_get_verify_result() would incorrectly have the MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_KEY_USAGE and MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_KEY_USAGE bits clear. As a result, an attacker that had a certificate valid for uses other than TLS client authentication would nonetheless be able to use it for TLS client authentication. Only TLS 1.3 servers were affected, and only with optional authentication (with required authentication, the handshake would be aborted with a fatal alert).Show less

A flaw was found in Kroxylicious. When establishing the connection with the upstream Kafka server using a TLS secured connection, Kroxylicious fails to properly verify the server's hostname, resulting in an insecure connection. For a successful attack to be performed, the attacker needs to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack or compromise any external systems, such as DNS or network routing configuration. This issue is considered a high complexity attack, with additional high privileges required, as the attack would need access to the Kroxylicious configuration or a peer system. The result of a successful attack impacts both data integrity and confidentiality.Show less

QBiC CLOUD CC-2L v1.1.30 and earlier and Safie One v1.8.2 and earlier do not properly validate certificates, which may allow a network-adjacent unauthenticated attacker to obtain and/or alter communications of the affected product via a man-in-the-middle attack.Show less

Validating the order of the public keys in the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol, when an approved safe prime is used, allows remote attackers (from the client side) to trigger unnecessarily expensive server-side DHE modular-exponentiation calculations. The client may cause asymmetric resource consumption. The basic attack scenario is that the client must claim that it can only communicate with DHE, and the server must be configured to allow DHE and validate the order of the public key.Show less

An issue was discovered in Fort before 1.6.3. A malicious RPKI repository that descends from a (trusted) Trust Anchor can serve (via rsync or RRDP) an ROA or a Manifest containing a signedAttrs encoded in non-canonical form. This bypasses Fort's BER decoder, reaching a point in the code that panics when faced with data not encoded in DER. Because Fort is an RPKI Relying Party, a panic can lead to Route Origin Validation unavailability, which can lead to compromised routing.Show less

Collabora Online is a collaborative online office suite based on LibreOffice. In affected versions of Collabora Online, https connections from coolwsd to other hosts may incompletely verify the remote host's certificate's against the full chain of trust. This vulnerability is fixed in Collabora Online 24.04.4.3, 23.05.14.1, and 22.05.23.1.Show less