An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 8.0.0, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.9 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO...Show moreAn improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 8.0.0, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.9 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message.Show less |
A improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through...Show moreA improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.14, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.21, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message.Show less |
The ruby-saml library implements the client side of an SAML authorization. Versions up to and including 1.12.4, are vulnerable to authentication bypass through the libxml2 canonicalization process used by Nokogiri for do...Show moreThe ruby-saml library implements the client side of an SAML authorization. Versions up to and including 1.12.4, are vulnerable to authentication bypass through the libxml2 canonicalization process used by Nokogiri for document transformation, which allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. When libxml2’s canonicalization is invoked on an invalid XML input, it may return an empty string rather than a canonicalized node. ruby-saml then proceeds to compute the DigestValue over this empty string, treating it as if canonicalization succeeded. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0.Show less |
The ruby-saml library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. ruby-saml versions up to and including 1.12.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-25292....Show moreThe ruby-saml library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. ruby-saml versions up to and including 1.12.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-25292. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, generating entirely different document structures from the same input. This allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0.Show less |
Improper verification of cryptographic signatures in the patch management component of Ivanti Endpoint Manager prior to version 2024 SU4 SR1 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code. User Intera...Show moreImproper verification of cryptographic signatures in the patch management component of Ivanti Endpoint Manager prior to version 2024 SU4 SR1 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code. User Interaction is required.Show less |
auth0/node-jws is a JSON Web Signature implementation for Node.js. In versions 3.2.2 and earlier and version 4.0.0, auth0/node-jws has an improper signature verification vulnerability when using the HS256 algorithm under...Show moreauth0/node-jws is a JSON Web Signature implementation for Node.js. In versions 3.2.2 and earlier and version 4.0.0, auth0/node-jws has an improper signature verification vulnerability when using the HS256 algorithm under specific conditions. Applications are affected when they use the jws.createVerify() function for HMAC algorithms and use user-provided data from the JSON Web Signature protected header or payload in HMAC secret lookup routines, which can allow attackers to bypass signature verification. This issue has been patched in versions 3.2.3 and 4.0.1.Show less |
XML-Sig versions 0.27 through 0.67 for Perl incorrectly validates XML files if signatures are omitted.
An attacker can remove the signature from the XML document to make it pass the verification check.
XML-Sig is a Per...Show moreXML-Sig versions 0.27 through 0.67 for Perl incorrectly validates XML files if signatures are omitted.
An attacker can remove the signature from the XML document to make it pass the verification check.
XML-Sig is a Perl module to validate signatures on XML files. An unsigned XML file should return an error message. The affected versions return true when attempting to validate an XML file that contains no signatures.Show less |
GoSign Desktop versions 2.4.0 and earlier use an unsigned update manifest for distributing application updates. The manifest contains package URLs and SHA-256 hashes but is not digitally signed, so its authenticity relie...Show moreGoSign Desktop versions 2.4.0 and earlier use an unsigned update manifest for distributing application updates. The manifest contains package URLs and SHA-256 hashes but is not digitally signed, so its authenticity relies solely on the underlying TLS channel. In affected versions, TLS certificate validation can be disabled when a proxy is configured, allowing an attacker who can intercept network traffic to supply a malicious update manifest and corresponding package with a matching hash. This can cause the client to download and install a tampered update, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the GoSign Desktop user on Windows and macOS, or with elevated privileges on some Linux deployments. A local attacker who can modify proxy settings may also abuse this behavior to escalate privileges by forcing installation of a crafted update.Show less |
Improper verification of cryptographic signature in the installer for Zoom Workplace VDI Client for Windows may allow an authenticated user to conduct an escalation of privilege via local access. |
Evervault is a payment security solution. A vulnerability was identified in the `evervault-go` SDK’s attestation verification logic in versions of `evervault-go` prior to 1.3.2 that may allow incomplete documents to pass...Show moreEvervault is a payment security solution. A vulnerability was identified in the `evervault-go` SDK’s attestation verification logic in versions of `evervault-go` prior to 1.3.2 that may allow incomplete documents to pass validation. This may cause the client to trust an enclave operator that does not meet expected integrity guarantees. The exploitability of this issue is limited in Evervault-hosted environments as an attacker would require the pre-requisite ability to serve requests from specific evervault domain names, following from our ACME challenge based TLS certificate acquisition pipeline. The vulnerability primarily affects applications which only check PCR8. Though the efficacy is also reduced for applications that check all PCR values, the impact is largely remediated by checking PCR 0, 1 and 2. The identified issue has been addressed in version 1.3.2 by validating attestation documents before storing in the cache, and replacing the naive equality checks with a new SatisfiedBy check. Those who useevervault-go to attest Enclaves that are hosted outside of Evervault environments and cannot upgrade have two possible workarounds available. Modify the application logic to fail verification if PCR8 is not explicitly present and non-empty and/or add custom pre-validation to reject documents that omit any required PCRs.Show less |
In JetBrains ReSharper before 2025.2.4 missing signature verification in DPA Collector allows local privilege escalation |
Improper authentication in the API authentication middleware of HCL DevOps Loop allows authentication tokens to be accepted without proper validation of their expiration and cryptographic signature. As a result, an atta...Show moreImproper authentication in the API authentication middleware of HCL DevOps Loop allows authentication tokens to be accepted without proper validation of their expiration and cryptographic signature. As a result, an attacker could potentially use expired or tampered tokens to gain unauthorized access to sensitive resources and perform actions with elevated privileges.Show less |
A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to acc...Show moreA downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.Show less |
A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access user-sensitive da...Show moreA downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data.Show less |
Cryptographic validation of upgrade images could be circumventing by dropping a specifically crafted file into the upgrade ISO |
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...Show moreConstellation 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.Show less |
A weakness has been identified in D-Link DAP-2695 2.00RC13. The affected element is the function sub_40C6B8 of the component Firmware Update Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptograp...Show moreA weakness has been identified in D-Link DAP-2695 2.00RC13. The affected element is the function sub_40C6B8 of the component Firmware Update Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack can be launched remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.Show less |
Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across re...Show moreDeck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.Show less |
Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validat...Show moreDeck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.Show less |
This issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0.
Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes.
When...Show moreThis issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0.
Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes.
When spark.network.crypto.enabled is set to true (it is set to false by default), but spark.network.crypto.cipher is not explicitly configured, Spark defaults to AES in CTR mode (AES/CTR/NoPadding), which provides encryption without authentication.
This vulnerability allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to modify encrypted RPC traffic undetected by flipping bits in ciphertext, potentially compromising heartbeat messages or application data and affecting the integrity of Spark workflows.
To mitigate this issue, users should either configure spark.network.crypto.cipher to AES/GCM/NoPadding to enable authenticated encryption or
enable SSL encryption by setting spark.ssl.enabled to true, which provides stronger transport security.Show less |