Doco-CD is a GitOps continuous delivery tool that automatically deploys and updates Docker Compose projects/services and Swarm stacks. Prior to version 0.90.1, a trust-boundary flaw in OCI artifact verification allowed a...Show moreDoco-CD is a GitOps continuous delivery tool that automatically deploys and updates Docker Compose projects/services and Swarm stacks. Prior to version 0.90.1, a trust-boundary flaw in OCI artifact verification allowed artifact-provided deployment config to influence the policy used to verify that same artifact. When global OCI signature verification was enabled via `OCI_TRUST_POLICY` (`enabled: true`), an attacker with write access to the configured OCI tag could publish an unsigned or improperly signed artifact containing `.doco-cd.yml` with `oci.verify: false`. This could cause signature verification to be bypassed and untrusted deployment content to be applied. This primarily impacts users deploying from OCI artifacts where deployment config is read from artifact contents (for example, poll/webhook flows without trusted inline deployment overrides). The issue is fixed by enforcing a strict trust boundary and no-downgrade behavior. First, artifact-contained `.doco-cd.yml` is treated as untrusted for OCI trust-policy override decisions. Second, if global `OCI_TRUST_POLICY.enabled` is `true`, per-deployment `oci.verify: false` cannot disable verification. Some workarounds are available. Do not source deployment config from untrusted OCI artifact contents. Use trusted inline `POLL_CONFIG.deployments` and avoid relying on artifact-contained trust-policy overrides. Restrict write/push permissions for OCI repositories/tags used by doco-cd. Prefer immutable digest pinning and protected release/tag workflows. Monitor for unexpected artifact digest changes and failed/suspicious verification events.Show less |
An attacker may achieve arbitrary code execution on a target system by uploading a malicious device driver package, bypassing driver verification mechanisms, and triggering the execution of
attacker-controlled code. User...Show moreAn attacker may achieve arbitrary code execution on a target system by uploading a malicious device driver package, bypassing driver verification mechanisms, and triggering the execution of
attacker-controlled code. User interaction is required.Show less |
A potential security vulnerability in HPE IceWall products could be exploited to tamper SAML response, allowing an attacker to impersonate another user. |
live-boot ff8867c allows attackers to bypass the dm-verity-enforce-roothash-signature protection mechanism when the .verity file is missing. |
In the jose package before 0.11.0 for OCaml, library calls to validate an RSA signature only confirm that PKCS #1 decoding succeeds, and proceed to declare the signature valid without the required steps that involve the...Show moreIn the jose package before 0.11.0 for OCaml, library calls to validate an RSA signature only confirm that PKCS #1 decoding succeeds, and proceed to declare the signature valid without the required steps that involve the public key.Show less |
passport-saml-encrypted through 0.1.13 contains an XML signature wrapping vulnerability where signature verification and assertion extraction use independent XPath lookups with no cross-validation. Attackers holding any...Show morepassport-saml-encrypted through 0.1.13 contains an XML signature wrapping vulnerability where signature verification and assertion extraction use independent XPath lookups with no cross-validation. Attackers holding any validly signed SAML message can prepend a forged unsigned assertion that gets accepted as the verified identity while the genuine signature validates against the original assertion.Show less |
passport-saml-encrypted through 0.1.13 makes SAML signature verification conditional on an optional cert option, allowing attackers to bypass authentication by submitting unsigned SAML responses. Attackers can post forge...Show morepassport-saml-encrypted through 0.1.13 makes SAML signature verification conditional on an optional cert option, allowing attackers to bypass authentication by submitting unsigned SAML responses. Attackers can post forged SAML responses with arbitrary NameID and attributes to the assertion consumer service endpoint to receive authenticated profiles without valid signatures.Show less |
PocketMine-MP versions before 5.3.1 and 4.23.1 fail to validate that the identityPublicKey in LoginPacket uses the required secp384r1 elliptic curve. Attackers can provide LoginPackets with keys using different curves or...Show morePocketMine-MP versions before 5.3.1 and 4.23.1 fail to validate that the identityPublicKey in LoginPacket uses the required secp384r1 elliptic curve. Attackers can provide LoginPackets with keys using different curves or non-EC key types to pass login verification but trigger an uncaught exception during ECDH key derivation, crashing the server.Show less |
Dell SCG 5.0 Appliance versions prior to 5.36.00.16 and Dell SCG 5.0 Application versions prior to 5.36.00.00, contains an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with...Show moreDell SCG 5.0 Appliance versions prior to 5.36.00.16 and Dell SCG 5.0 Application versions prior to 5.36.00.00, contains an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to protection mechanism bypass.Show less |
Signature of Bearer token is not verified in last step of SAML2 authentication for Impala's hs2-http interface, allowing altering user name and acting as another user.
This issue affects Apache Impala: >=4.0.0.
Use...Show moreSignature of Bearer token is not verified in last step of SAML2 authentication for Impala's hs2-http interface, allowing altering user name and acting as another user.
This issue affects Apache Impala: >=4.0.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 4.5.2, which fixes this issue.Show less |
An issue was discovered in the mirage-crypto package before 2.2.0 for OCaml. The AES.GCM.authenticate_decrypt_into and Chacha20.authenticate_decrypt_into functions write the decrypted plaintext into a caller-provided buf...Show moreAn issue was discovered in the mirage-crypto package before 2.2.0 for OCaml. The AES.GCM.authenticate_decrypt_into and Chacha20.authenticate_decrypt_into functions write the decrypted plaintext into a caller-provided buffer and only then compares the tag. On a forged tag, the functions returns false, but the destination buffer already holds the full plaintext.Show less |
n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to 1.123.76, 2.37.7, and 2.38.2, the GitHub Trigger generated a webhook secret but discarded it when GitHub returned HTTP 422 and the node reused an existing webh...Show moren8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to 1.123.76, 2.37.7, and 2.38.2, the GitHub Trigger generated a webhook secret but discarded it when GitHub returned HTTP 422 and the node reused an existing webhook. Workflow static data then retained webhookId without webhookSecret, and X-Hub-Signature-256 verification accepted deliveries without a stored secret. The affected logic includes packages/nodes-base/nodes/Github/GithubTriggerHelpers.ts and the 422 webhook reuse path. This issue is fixed in versions 1.123.76, 2.37.7 and 2.38.2.Show less |
Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Skype for Business allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over an adjacent network. |
In multiple locations, there is a possible improper encryption key validation due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User intera...Show moreIn multiple locations, there is a possible improper encryption key validation due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Show less |
Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Windows RDP Client allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network. |
CommServe contained a cryptographic signature verification issue affecting privilege management. Software customers upgrade to resolved maintenance release. Update CommServe and Web Server. |
When using the Direct XIP
update strategy, the main application image starts other cores (i.e. radio
core), based on the currently active slot without additional verification. The
MCUboot in the bare (upstream) configura...Show moreWhen using the Direct XIP
update strategy, the main application image starts other cores (i.e. radio
core), based on the currently active slot without additional verification. The
MCUboot in the bare (upstream) configuration assumes that if there is at least
a single slot for each image available, the system is bootable and continues
the boot process. This may lead to a situation when MCUboot picks different
slot for different images (i.e. (a) for the main application and (b) for the
radio image), boots the main application (from slot (a)) that afterwards starts
the radio image by providing an address of the unauthenticated slot ((a)
instead of (b)).Show less |
MojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor.
parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAM...Show moreMojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor.
parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAML2 calls Net::SAML2::Binding::POST->new with no cacert, cert_text or anchors argument, then passes the returned XML to Net::SAML2::Protocol::Assertion->new_from_xml with the IdP signing certificate as cacert. In Net::SAML2 before 0.86 that certificate guards only encrypted assertions, so the signature on an unencrypted assertion is checked against the certificate the response itself carries.
An attacker starts a SAML login, then posts a response signed with a certificate of their own. The audience, InResponseTo and timestamp checks that follow are all satisfiable by the attacker, so the response authenticates any NameID it carries.Show less |
MikroTik RouterOS accepts malformed RSA/PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures across RSA-based services, including TLS/X.509 certificate validation and SSH host-key authentication. Because its trust store includes an e=3 root CA, an at...Show moreMikroTik RouterOS accepts malformed RSA/PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures across RSA-based services, including TLS/X.509 certificate validation and SSH host-key authentication. Because its trust store includes an e=3 root CA, an attacker controlling or redirecting an outbound RouterOS TLS connection can use the root’s public certificate - without its private key - to forge a trusted intermediate and issue certificates for arbitrary hostnames, enabling TLS server impersonation. The same permissive verification also undermines RSA-based SSH authentication.
This issue affects only 7.x branch was fixed in versions: 7.23.6 (Long-term) and 7.24.3 (Stable).
Releases 7.23.4 and 7.24.2 included an incomplete fix.Show less |
RouterOS does not compare the complete RSA public key when matching an SSH authentication request to an authorized user key, checking the key type and modulus but omitting the exponent. Because signature verification use...Show moreRouterOS does not compare the complete RSA public key when matching an SSH authentication request to an authorized user key, checking the key type and modulus but omitting the exponent. Because signature verification uses the client-supplied key, an attacker knowing an authorized RSA modulus can supply a key with exponent one, forge a valid signature, and open an SSH command channel as the target user without the private key.This issue affects only 7.x branch was fixed in versions: 7.23.4 (Long-term) and 7.24.2 (Stable)Show less |