Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

In OASIS Digital Signature Services (DSS) 1.0, an attacker can control the validation outcome (i.e., trigger either a valid or invalid outcome for a valid or invalid signature) via a crafted XML signature, when the InlineXML option is used. This defeats the expectation of non-repudiation.Show less

NCR SelfServ ATMs running APTRA XFS 05.01.00 do not properly validate softare updates for the bunch note acceptor (BNA), enabling an attacker with physical access to internal ATM components to restart the host computer and execute arbitrary code with SYSTEM privileges because while booting, the update process looks for CAB archives on removable media and executes a specific file without first validating the signature of the CAB archive.Show less

A spoofing vulnerability exists when Windows incorrectly validates file signatures. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could bypass security features and load improperly signed files. In an attack scenario, an attacker could bypass security features intended to prevent improperly signed files from being loaded. The update addresses the vulnerability by correcting how Windows validates file signatures.Show less

An issue was discovered in DP3T-Backend-SDK before 1.1.1 for Decentralised Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (DP3T). When it is configured to check JWT before uploading/publishing keys, it is possible to skip the signature check by providing a JWT token with alg=none.Show less

GRUB2 fails to validate kernel signature when booted directly without shim, allowing secure boot to be bypassed. This only affects systems where the kernel signing certificate has been imported directly into the secure boot database and the GRUB image is booted directly without the use of shim. This issue affects GRUB2 version 2.04 and prior versions.Show less

In OSIsoft PI System multiple products and versions, a local attacker can plant a binary and bypass a code integrity check for loading PI System libraries. This exploitation can target another local user of PI System software on the computer to escalate privilege and result in unauthorized information disclosure, deletion, or modification.Show less

Sylabs Singularity 3.0 through 3.5 has Improper Validation of an Integrity Check Value. Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced. The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature.Show less

The tough library (Rust/crates.io) prior to version 0.7.1 does not properly verify the threshold of cryptographic signatures. It allows an attacker to duplicate a valid signature in order to circumvent TUF requiring a minimum threshold of unique signatures before the metadata is considered valid. A fix is available in version 0.7.1. CVE-2020-6174 is assigned to the same vulnerability in the TUF reference implementation.Show less

HUAWEI P30 with versions earlier than 10.1.0.135(C00E135R2P11) have an improper signature verification vulnerability. The system does not improper check signature of specific software package, an attacker may exploit this vulnerability to load a crafted software package to the device.Show less

TenderMint from version 0.33.0 and before version 0.33.6 allows block proposers to include signatures for the wrong block. This may happen naturally if you start a network, have it run for some time and restart it (**without changing chainID**). A malicious block proposer (even with a minimal amount of stake) can use this vulnerability to completely halt the network. This issue is fixed in Tendermint 0.33.6 which checks all the signatures are for the block with 2/3+ majority before creating a commit.Show less

When Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) authentication is enabled and the 'Validate Identity Provider Certificate' option is disabled (unchecked), improper verification of signatures in PAN-OS SAML authentication enables an unauthenticated network-based attacker to access protected resources. The attacker must have network access to the vulnerable server to exploit this vulnerability. This issue affects PAN-OS 9.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.1.3; PAN-OS 9.0 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.0.9; PAN-OS 8.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 8.1.15, and all versions of PAN-OS 8.0 (EOL). This issue does not affect PAN-OS 7.1. This issue cannot be exploited if SAML is not used for authentication. This issue cannot be exploited if the 'Validate Identity Provider Certificate' option is enabled (checked) in the SAML Identity Provider Server Profile. Resources that can be protected by SAML-based single sign-on (SSO) authentication are: GlobalProtect Gateway, GlobalProtect Portal, GlobalProtect Clientless VPN, Authentication and Captive Portal, PAN-OS next-generation firewalls (PA-Series, VM-Series) and Panorama web interfaces, Prisma Access In the case of GlobalProtect Gateways, GlobalProtect Portal, Clientless VPN, Captive Portal, and Prisma Access, an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the affected servers can gain access to protected resources if allowed by configured authentication and Security policies. There is no impact on the integrity and availability of the gateway, portal or VPN server. An attacker cannot inspect or tamper with sessions of regular users. In the worst case, this is a critical severity vulnerability with a CVSS Base Score of 10.0 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N). In the case of PAN-OS and Panorama web interfaces, this issue allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the PAN-OS or Panorama web interfaces to log in as an administrator and perform administrative actions. In the worst-case scenario, this is a critical severity vulnerability with a CVSS Base Score of 10.0 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). If the web interfaces are only accessible to a restricted management network, then the issue is lowered to a CVSS Base Score of 9.6 (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). Palo Alto Networks is not aware of any malicious attempts to exploit this vulnerability.Show less

A vulnerability exists that could allow the execution of unauthorized code or operating system commands on systems running exacqVision Web Service versions 20.06.3.0 and prior and exacqVision Enterprise Manager versions 20.06.4.0 and prior. An attacker with administrative privileges could potentially download and run a malicious executable that could allow OS command injection on the system.Show less

In Argent RecoveryManager before 0xdc350d09f71c48c5D22fBE2741e4d6A03970E192, the executeRecovery function does not require any signatures in the zero-guardian case, which allows attackers to cause a denial of service (locking) or a takeover.Show less

An issue was discovered in the jsrsasign package through 8.0.18 for Node.js. It allows a malleability in ECDSA signatures by not checking overflows in the length of a sequence and '0' characters appended or prepended to an integer. The modified signatures are verified as valid. This could have a security-relevant impact if an application relied on a single canonical signature.Show less

BIP-143 in the Bitcoin protocol specification mishandles the signing of a Segwit transaction, which allows attackers to trick a user into making two signatures in certain cases, potentially leading to a huge transaction fee. NOTE: this affects all hardware wallets. It was fixed in 1.9.1 for the Trezor One and 2.3.1 for the Trezor Model T.Show less

Crypt::Perl::ECDSA in the Crypt::Perl (aka p5-Crypt-Perl) module before 0.32 for Perl fails to verify correct ECDSA signatures when r and s are small and when s = 1. This happens when using the curve secp256r1 (prime256v1). This could conceivably have a security-relevant impact if an attacker wishes to use public r and s values when guessing whether signature verification will fail.Show less