An improper verification of the cryptographic signature of firmware updates of the B. Braun Melsungen AG SpaceCom Version L81/U61 and earlier, and the Data module compactplus Versions A10 and A11 allows attackers to gene...Show moreAn improper verification of the cryptographic signature of firmware updates of the B. Braun Melsungen AG SpaceCom Version L81/U61 and earlier, and the Data module compactplus Versions A10 and A11 allows attackers to generate valid firmware updates with arbitrary content that can be used to tamper with devices.Show less |
AVEVA System Platform versions 2017 through 2020 R2 P01 does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data. |
On Schneider Electric ConneXium Tofino Firewall TCSEFEA23F3F22 before 03.23, TCSEFEA23F3F20/21, and Belden Tofino Xenon Security Appliance, an arbitrary firmware image can be loaded because firmware signature verificatio...Show moreOn Schneider Electric ConneXium Tofino Firewall TCSEFEA23F3F22 before 03.23, TCSEFEA23F3F20/21, and Belden Tofino Xenon Security Appliance, an arbitrary firmware image can be loaded because firmware signature verification (for a USB stick) can be bypassed. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix of CVE-2017-11400.Show less |
Yubico ykneo-openpgp before 1.0.10 has a typo in which an invalid PIN can be used. When first powered up, a signature will be issued even though the PIN has not been validated. |
Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code does not properly check `DigestInfo` for a proper...Show moreForge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code does not properly check `DigestInfo` for a proper ASN.1 structure. This can lead to successful verification with signatures that contain invalid structures but a valid digest. The issue has been addressed in `node-forge` version 1.3.0. There are currently no known workarounds.Show less |
Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code does not check for tailing garbage bytes after de...Show moreForge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code does not check for tailing garbage bytes after decoding a `DigestInfo` ASN.1 structure. This can allow padding bytes to be removed and garbage data added to forge a signature when a low public exponent is being used. The issue has been addressed in `node-forge` version 1.3.0. There are currently no known workarounds.Show less |
Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code is lenient in checking the digest algorithm struc...Show moreForge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code is lenient in checking the digest algorithm structure. This can allow a crafted structure that steals padding bytes and uses unchecked portion of the PKCS#1 encoded message to forge a signature when a low public exponent is being used. The issue has been addressed in `node-forge` version 1.3.0. There are currently no known workarounds.Show less |
`@chainsafe/libp2p-noise` contains TypeScript implementation of noise protocol, an encryption protocol used in libp2p. `@chainsafe/libp2p-noise` before 4.1.2 and 5.0.3 does not correctly validate signatures during the ha...Show more`@chainsafe/libp2p-noise` contains TypeScript implementation of noise protocol, an encryption protocol used in libp2p. `@chainsafe/libp2p-noise` before 4.1.2 and 5.0.3 does not correctly validate signatures during the handshake process. This may allow a man-in-the-middle to pose as other peers and get those peers banned. Users should upgrade to version 4.1.2 or 5.0.3 to receive a patch. There are currently no known workarounds.Show less |
wire-server provides back end services for Wire, an open source messenger. In versions of wire-server prior to the 2022-01-27 release, it was possible to craft DSA Signatures to bypass SAML SSO and impersonate any Wire u...Show morewire-server provides back end services for Wire, an open source messenger. In versions of wire-server prior to the 2022-01-27 release, it was possible to craft DSA Signatures to bypass SAML SSO and impersonate any Wire user with SAML credentials. In teams with SAML, but without SCIM, it was possible to create new accounts with fake SAML credentials. Under certain conditions that can be established by an attacker, an upstream library for parsing, rendering, signing, and validating SAML XML data was accepting public keys as trusted that were provided by the attacker in the signature. As a consequence, the attacker could login as any user in any Wire team with SAML SSO enabled. If SCIM was not enabled, the attacker could also create new users with new SAML NameIDs. In order to exploit this vulnerability, the attacker needs to know the SSO login code (distributed to all team members with SAML credentials and visible in the Team Management app), the SAML EntityID identifying the IdP (a URL not considered sensitive, but usually hard to guess, also visible in Team Management), and the SAML NameID of the user (usually an email address or a nick). The issue has been fixed in wire-server `2022-01-27` and is already deployed on all Wire managed services. On premise instances of wire-server need to be updated to `2022-01-27`, so that their backends are no longer affected. There are currently no known workarounds. More detailed information about how to reproduce the vulnerability and mitigation strategies is available in the GitHub Security Advisory.Show less |
An improper signature verification vulnerability was found in coreos-installer. A specially crafted gzip installation image can bypass the image signature verification and as a consequence can lead to the installation of...Show moreAn improper signature verification vulnerability was found in coreos-installer. A specially crafted gzip installation image can bypass the image signature verification and as a consequence can lead to the installation of unsigned content. An attacker able to modify the original installation image can write arbitrary data, and achieve full access to the node being installed.Show less |
STMicroelectronics STSAFE-J 1.1.4, J-SAFE3 1.2.5, and J-SIGN sometimes allow attackers to abuse signature verification. This is associated with the ECDSA signature algorithm on the Java Card J-SAFE3 and STSAFE-J platform...Show moreSTMicroelectronics STSAFE-J 1.1.4, J-SAFE3 1.2.5, and J-SIGN sometimes allow attackers to abuse signature verification. This is associated with the ECDSA signature algorithm on the Java Card J-SAFE3 and STSAFE-J platforms exposing a 3.0.4 Java Card API. It is exploitable for STSAFE-J in closed configuration and J-SIGN (when signature verification is activated) but not for J-SAFE3 EPASS BAC and EAC products. It might also impact other products based on the J-SAFE-3 Java Card platform.Show less |
STMicroelectronics STSAFE-J 1.1.4, J-SAFE3 1.2.5, and J-SIGN sometimes allow attackers to obtain information on cryptographic secrets. This is associated with the ECDSA signature algorithm on the Java Card J-SAFE3 and ST...Show moreSTMicroelectronics STSAFE-J 1.1.4, J-SAFE3 1.2.5, and J-SIGN sometimes allow attackers to obtain information on cryptographic secrets. This is associated with the ECDSA signature algorithm on the Java Card J-SAFE3 and STSAFE-J platforms exposing a 3.0.4 Java Card API. It is exploitable for STSAFE-J in closed configuration and J-SIGN (when signature verification is activated) but not for J-SAFE3 EPASS BAC and EAC products. It might also impact other products based on the J-SAFE-3 Java Card platform.Show less |
LibreOffice supports digital signatures of ODF documents and macros within documents, presenting visual aids that no alteration of the document occurred since the last signing and that the signature is valid. An Improper...Show moreLibreOffice supports digital signatures of ODF documents and macros within documents, presenting visual aids that no alteration of the document occurred since the last signing and that the signature is valid. An Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in LibreOffice allowed an attacker to create a digitally signed ODF document, by manipulating the documentsignatures.xml or macrosignatures.xml stream within the document to contain both "X509Data" and "KeyValue" children of the "KeyInfo" tag, which when opened caused LibreOffice to verify using the "KeyValue" but to report verification with the unrelated "X509Data" value. This issue affects: The Document Foundation LibreOffice 7.2 versions prior to 7.2.5.Show less |
Octobercms is a self-hosted CMS platform based on the Laravel PHP Framework. Affected versions of OctoberCMS did not validate gateway server signatures. As a result non-authoritative gateway servers may be used to exfilt...Show moreOctobercms is a self-hosted CMS platform based on the Laravel PHP Framework. Affected versions of OctoberCMS did not validate gateway server signatures. As a result non-authoritative gateway servers may be used to exfiltrate user private keys. Users are advised to upgrade their installations to build 474 or v1.1.10. The only known workaround is to manually apply the patch (e3b455ad587282f0fbcb7763c6d9c3d000ca1e6a) which adds server signature validation.Show less |
There is a vulnerability of signature verification mechanism failure in system upgrade through recovery mode.Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality. |
Local privilege escalation due to unrestricted loading of unsigned libraries. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office (macOS) before build 39605, Acronis True Image 2021 (macOS) before buil...Show moreLocal privilege escalation due to unrestricted loading of unsigned libraries. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office (macOS) before build 39605, Acronis True Image 2021 (macOS) before build 39287Show less |
A firmware update vulnerability exists in the "update" firmware checks functionality of reolink RLC-410W v3.0.0.136_20121102. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to firmware update. An attacker can send a...Show moreA firmware update vulnerability exists in the "update" firmware checks functionality of reolink RLC-410W v3.0.0.136_20121102. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.Show less |
If an OpenID Connect provider supports the "none" algorithm (i.e., tokens with no signature), pac4j v5.3.0 (and prior) does not refuse it without an explicit configuration on its side or for the "idtoken" response type w...Show moreIf an OpenID Connect provider supports the "none" algorithm (i.e., tokens with no signature), pac4j v5.3.0 (and prior) does not refuse it without an explicit configuration on its side or for the "idtoken" response type which is not secure and violates the OpenID Core Specification. The "none" algorithm does not require any signature verification when validating the ID tokens, which allows the attacker to bypass the token validation by injecting a malformed ID token using "none" as the value of "alg" key in the header with an empty signature value.Show less |
Trendnet AC2600 TEW-827DRU version 2.08B01 contains an improper access control configuration that could allow for a malicious firmware update. It is possible to manually install firmware that may be malicious in nature a...Show moreTrendnet AC2600 TEW-827DRU version 2.08B01 contains an improper access control configuration that could allow for a malicious firmware update. It is possible to manually install firmware that may be malicious in nature as there does not appear to be any signature validation done to determine if it is from a known and trusted source. This includes firmware updates that are done via the automated "check for updates" in the admin interface. If an attacker is able to masquerade as the update server, the device will not verify that the firmware updates downloaded are legitimate.Show less |
CPAN 2.28 allows Signature Verification Bypass. |