Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper verification of cryptographic signatures.Show less

As part of Cisco's ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, the engineering team for Cisco License On-Prem, formerly Cisco Smart Software Manager On-Prem (SSM On-Prem), has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in software hardening releases that address multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-76482 are related to issues with improper input verification that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Pillar CWE-347.Show less

A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the Windows client software for ClearPass Policy Manager could allow malicious users on a local instance to elevate their user privileges. A successful exploit could allow these users to execute attacker-supplied code with elevated privileges on the local system.Show less

In Progress® Telerik® Fiddler® Classic for Windows, versions prior to v6.0.20262.10021, the integrity check applied to the external helper tools launched by the application is insufficient. Before executing a helper tool, the application only verifies that the file carries a valid Authenticode signature whose certificate subject name matches a broad allow list of publisher name fragments, rather than verifying that the file is the specific executable shipped with that version of the product. A local threat actor with low privileges who replaces one of these helper executables with any other validly signed binary from an allow-listed publisher can cause the substituted binary to be executed by the application, including with Administrator privileges for the tools that request elevation, resulting in privilege escalation and execution of unintended code. Successful exploitation requires the user to launch the affected external tool and to approve the elevation prompt without noticing that it refers to a different executable.Show less

A flaw has been found in invariant-systems-ai aiir up to 1.7.0. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Policy Gate Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack can be executed remotely. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The GitHub repository of this project is not available anymore. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.Show less

OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an open redirect vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to redirect users by supplying an unverified id_token_hint to the /oauth2/connect/endSession endpoint. Attackers can name any realm client in a forged hint to redirect victims to any registered post-logout URI, enabling phishing that borrows the OpenAM host's trust.Show less

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, BLS12_381BasicScheme.keyValidate, and so BLSPublicKeyParameters and every BasicScheme, MessageAugmentation and ProofOfPossession verify and aggregateVerify that gate on it, accepted a public key built on a foreign ECCurve that merely shares BLS12-381's field characteristic. The prime-order subgroup check trusts a point's own curve to name its cofactor, since ECPoint.satisfiesOrder returns true outright when the curve's cofactor is one, so a point on a curve with a different equation and a cofactor forged to one passed keyValidate despite not being a G1 point at all. In BC's pairing implementation such a point contributes the identity in the target group, so an aggregate signature verified against a set of public keys including it is accepted even though it contains no signature for that key and message pair, admitting a phantom signer. keyValidate now first confirms that the point's curve carries exactly the canonical G1 field, equation, order and cofactor before any subgroup check. The issue is reachable only where an application constructs an ECPoint on an explicit, non-canonical curve and accepts it as an authority-bearing key; the standard 48-byte compressed-point decoder always supplies the canonical curve and was never affected.Show less

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected.Show less

Zebra before 4.4.0 contains a consensus divergence vulnerability in V5 transparent signature verification, computing a ZIP-244 digest for SIGHASH_SINGLE inputs lacking corresponding outputs instead of failing. Attackers can craft V5 transactions with fewer outputs than inputs that Zebra accepts and templates via getblocktemplate, producing blocks zcashd rejects.Show less

Zebra zebrad 4.4.0 and zebra-script 6.0.0 fail to enforce a ZIP-244 consensus rule, accepting V5 transparent inputs signed with SIGHASH_SINGLE that lack a corresponding output. Attackers can broadcast crafted V5 transactions with more inputs than outputs that Zebra accepts but zcashd rejects, causing a network consensus split.Show less

An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability exists in protocol gateways because the device does not properly verify the cryptographic authenticity of firmware images before installation. An attacker with high privileges and access to the firmware update interface could provide a specially crafted or modified firmware image, causing it to be installed on the device. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute unauthorized code, compromise the integrity and availability of the device, and persist malicious modifications across subsequent firmware updates.Show less

Improper verification of cryptographic signature in the attribute certificate path validator (PkixAttrCertPathValidator, also used by PkixAttrCertPathBuilder) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows a remote attacker to have a forged X.509 attribute certificate accepted as valid, and so obtain whatever roles or privileges an application grants on the strength of its attributes, via an attribute certificate that names a trusted attribute authority as its issuer but was not signed by it, because the RFC 3281 validation steps check the holder and issuer certification paths, validity period, extensions and revocation status but never verify the attribute certificate's signature with the issuer's public key. Only applications that use these classes to validate attribute certificates are affected.Show less

This vulnerability enables unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) on a victim's machine by exploiting a combination of cryptographic weaknesses and memory management issues in the SConnect native host component. The attack leverages an unrestricted messaging interface between an attacker-controlled web page and the native host, allowing malicious input to bypass security checks.Show less

Improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Apache APISIX. Any unauthenticated attacker could impersonate any user on every route protected by the saml-auth plugin under default configuration. This issue affects Apache APISIX: from 3.17.0 through 3.18.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 3.19.0, which fixes the issue.Show less

n8n versions before 1.123.80, from 2.0.0 before 2.39.6, and from 2.40.0 before 2.40.1 fail to verify the x-webflow-signature HMAC in the Webflow Trigger node webhook handler. Unauthenticated attackers can send forged webhook requests with attacker-controlled payloads to trigger workflows and manipulate downstream actions like record creation or API calls.Show less

Tugtainer is a self-hosted app for automating updates of Docker containers. Prior to version 1.31.3, when the OIDC login flow completes, backend/modules/auth/providers/auth_oidc_provider.py decodes the id_token returned by the identity provider's token endpoint using jose.jwt.get_unverified_claims() instead of jwt.decode(). This skips signature verification, audience (aud) validation, issuer (iss) validation, and expiry (exp) checking entirely. The extracted claims (email/sub/preferred_username) are then used directly as the user_id for the resulting Tugtainer session. This issue has been patched in version 1.31.3.Show less

UltrafastSecp256k1 is a high-performance, multi-backend secp256k1 engine with reproducible audit evidence, compatibility shims, and profile-based review scopes. Prior to version 4.2.0, UltrafastSecp256k1's ECDSA adaptor pre-signature verification accepts forged adaptor pre-signatures whose "r" value is not cryptographically bound to the adaptor point "T". This issue has been patched in version 4.2.0.Show less

NVIDIA GPU Display Driver for Linux contains a vulnerability in the kernel mode layer where improper verification of cryptographic signatures may cause signature verification to be bypassed under memory pressure. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to denial of service and data tampering.Show less