The package jsrsasign before 10.5.25 are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature when JWS or JWT signature with non Base64URL encoding special characters or number escaped characters may be validat...Show moreThe package jsrsasign before 10.5.25 are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature when JWS or JWT signature with non Base64URL encoding special characters or number escaped characters may be validated as valid by mistake. Workaround: Validate JWS or JWT signature if it has Base64URL and dot safe string before executing JWS.verify() or JWS.verifyJWT() method.Show less |
The tested version of Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast X does not validate application signatures to a trusted root certificate. Use of a trusted root certificate ensures software installed on a device is traceable to,...Show moreThe tested version of Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast X does not validate application signatures to a trusted root certificate. Use of a trusted root certificate ensures software installed on a device is traceable to, or verifiable against, a cryptographic key provided by the manufacturer to detect tampering. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to install malicious code, which could also be spread to other vulnerable ImageCast X devices via removable media.Show less |
Biscuit is an authentication and authorization token for microservices architectures. The Biscuit specification version 1 contains a vulnerable algorithm that allows malicious actors to forge valid Γ-signatures. Such an...Show moreBiscuit is an authentication and authorization token for microservices architectures. The Biscuit specification version 1 contains a vulnerable algorithm that allows malicious actors to forge valid Γ-signatures. Such an attack would allow an attacker to create a token with any access level. The version 2 of the specification mandates a different algorithm than gamma signatures and as such is not affected by this vulnerability. The Biscuit implementations in Rust, Haskell, Go, Java and Javascript all have published versions following the v2 specification. There are no known workarounds for this issue.Show less |
A firmware update vulnerability exists in the iburn firmware checks functionality of InHand Networks InRouter302 V3.5.37. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of r...Show moreA firmware update vulnerability exists in the iburn firmware checks functionality of InHand Networks InRouter302 V3.5.37. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.Show less |
ecdsautils is a tiny collection of programs used for ECDSA (keygen, sign, verify). `ecdsa_verify_[prepare_]legacy()` does not check whether the signature values `r` and `s` are non-zero. A signature consisting only of ze...Show moreecdsautils is a tiny collection of programs used for ECDSA (keygen, sign, verify). `ecdsa_verify_[prepare_]legacy()` does not check whether the signature values `r` and `s` are non-zero. A signature consisting only of zeroes is always considered valid, making it trivial to forge signatures. Requiring multiple signatures from different public keys does not mitigate the issue: `ecdsa_verify_list_legacy()` will accept an arbitrary number of such forged signatures. Both the `ecdsautil verify` CLI command and the libecdsautil library are affected. The issue has been fixed in ecdsautils 0.4.1. All older versions of ecdsautils (including versions before the split into a library and a CLI utility) are vulnerable.Show less |
The vulnerability is that IDToken verifier does not verify if token is properly signed. Signature verification makes sure that the token's payload comes from valid provider, not from someone else. An attacker can provide...Show moreThe vulnerability is that IDToken verifier does not verify if token is properly signed. Signature verification makes sure that the token's payload comes from valid provider, not from someone else. An attacker can provide a compromised token with custom payload. The token will pass the validation on the client side. We recommend upgrading to version 1.33.3 or aboveShow less |
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 |