ReportizFlow
Filtered by vendor
Subscriptions
Total
548 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-37886 | 1 Nextcloud | 2 Nextcloud, User Oidc | 2025-07-13 | 5.4 Medium |
| user_oidc app is an OpenID Connect user backend for Nextcloud. An attacker could potentially trick the app into accepting a request that is not signed by the correct server. It is recommended that the Nextcloud user_oidc app is upgraded to 1.3.5, 2.0.0, 3.0.0, 4.0.0 or 5.0.0. | ||||
| CVE-2025-31489 | 1 Minio | 1 Minio | 2025-07-12 | 7.5 High |
| MinIO is a High Performance Object Storage released under GNU Affero General Public License v3.0. The signature component of the authorization may be invalid, which would mean that as a client you can use any arbitrary secret to upload objects given the user already has prior WRITE permissions on the bucket. Prior knowledge of access-key, and bucket name this user might have access to - and an access-key with a WRITE permissions is necessary. However with relevant information in place, uploading random objects to buckets is trivial and easy via curl. This issue is fixed in RELEASE.2025-04-03T14-56-28Z. | ||||
| CVE-2024-13172 | 1 Ivanti | 1 Endpoint Manager | 2025-07-11 | 7.8 High |
| Improper signature verification in Ivanti EPM before the 2024 January-2025 Security Update and 2022 SU6 January-2025 Security Update allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to achieve remote code execution. Local user interaction is required. | ||||
| CVE-2025-33069 | 1 Microsoft | 2 Windows 11 24h2, Windows Server 2025 | 2025-07-11 | 5.1 Medium |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in App Control for Business (WDAC) allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally. | ||||
| CVE-2025-2763 | 1 Carlinkit | 2 Autokit, Cpc200-ccpa | 2025-07-11 | N/A |
| CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of update packages on USB drives. The issue results from the lack of proper verification of a cryptographic signature. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-24356. | ||||
| CVE-2025-2764 | 1 Carlinkit | 2 Autokit, Cpc200-ccpa | 2025-07-11 | N/A |
| CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA update.cgi Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA devices. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the handling of update packages provided to update.cgi. The issue results from the lack of proper verification of a cryptographic signature. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-24355. | ||||
| CVE-2024-8698 | 1 Redhat | 4 Build Keycloak, Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Red Hat Single Sign On and 1 more | 2025-07-10 | 7.7 High |
| A flaw exists in the SAML signature validation method within the Keycloak XMLSignatureUtil class. The method incorrectly determines whether a SAML signature is for the full document or only for specific assertions based on the position of the signature in the XML document, rather than the Reference element used to specify the signed element. This flaw allows attackers to create crafted responses that can bypass the validation, potentially leading to privilege escalation or impersonation attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2025-23364 | 1 Siemens | 1 Tia Administrator | 2025-07-08 | 6.2 Medium |
| A vulnerability has been identified in TIA Administrator (All versions < V3.0.6). The affected application improperly validates code signing certificates. This could allow an attacker to bypass the check and exceute arbitrary code during installations. | ||||
| CVE-2025-2866 | 1 Libreoffice | 1 Libreoffice | 2025-07-04 | 5.5 Medium |
| Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in LibreOffice allows PDF Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation. In the affected versions of LibreOffice a flaw in the verification code for adbe.pkcs7.sha1 signatures could cause invalid signatures to be accepted as valid This issue affects LibreOffice: from 24.8 before < 24.8.6, from 25.2 before < 25.2.2. | ||||
| CVE-2024-49365 | 2025-07-03 | N/A | ||
| tiny-secp256k1 is a tiny secp256k1 native/JS wrapper. Prior to version 1.1.7, a malicious JSON-stringifyable message can be made passing on verify(), when global Buffer is the buffer package. This affects only environments where require('buffer') is the NPM buffer package. Buffer.isBuffer check can be bypassed, resulting in strange objects being accepted as a message, and those messages could trick verify() into returning false-positive true values. This issue has been patched in version 1.1.7. | ||||
| CVE-2025-24043 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Windbg | 2025-07-03 | 7.5 High |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in .NET allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network. | ||||
| CVE-2023-20266 | 1 Cisco | 3 Emergency Responder, Unified Communications Manager, Unity Connection | 2025-07-01 | 6.5 Medium |
| A vulnerability in Cisco Emergency Responder, Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Unified CM), Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition (Unified CM SME), and Cisco Unity Connection could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to elevate privileges to root on an affected device. This vulnerability exists because the application does not properly restrict the files that are being used for upgrades. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing a crafted upgrade file. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to elevate privileges to root. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid platform administrator credentials on an affected device. | ||||
| CVE-2024-36347 | 2025-07-01 | 6.4 Medium | ||
| Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious microcode, potentially resulting in loss of integrity of x86 instruction execution, loss of confidentiality and integrity of data in x86 CPU privileged context and compromise of SMM execution environment. | ||||
| CVE-2024-11696 | 2 Mozilla, Redhat | 9 Firefox, Firefox Esr, Thunderbird and 6 more | 2025-06-24 | 5.4 Medium |
| The application failed to account for exceptions thrown by the `loadManifestFromFile` method during add-on signature verification. This flaw, triggered by an invalid or unsupported extension manifest, could have caused runtime errors that disrupted the signature validation process. As a result, the enforcement of signature validation for unrelated add-ons may have been bypassed. Signature validation in this context is used to ensure that third-party applications on the user's computer have not tampered with the user's extensions, limiting the impact of this issue. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 133, Firefox ESR < 128.5, Thunderbird < 133, and Thunderbird < 128.5. | ||||
| CVE-2025-47934 | 1 Openpgpjs | 1 Openpgpjs | 2025-06-24 | N/A |
| OpenPGP.js is a JavaScript implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. Startinf in version 5.0.1 and prior to versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1, a maliciously modified message can be passed to either `openpgp.verify` or `openpgp.decrypt`, causing these functions to return a valid signature verification result while returning data that was not actually signed. This flaw allows signature verifications of inline (non-detached) signed messages (using `openpgp.verify`) and signed-and-encrypted messages (using `openpgp.decrypt` with `verificationKeys`) to be spoofed, since both functions return extracted data that may not match the data that was originally signed. Detached signature verifications are not affected, as no signed data is returned in that case. In order to spoof a message, the attacker needs a single valid message signature (inline or detached) as well as the plaintext data that was legitimately signed, and can then construct an inline-signed message or signed-and-encrypted message with any data of the attacker's choice, which will appear as legitimately signed by affected versions of OpenPGP.js. In other words, any inline-signed message can be modified to return any other data (while still indicating that the signature was valid), and the same is true for signed+encrypted messages if the attacker can obtain a valid signature and encrypt a new message (of the attacker's choice) together with that signature. The issue has been patched in versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1. Some workarounds are available. When verifying inline-signed messages, extract the message and signature(s) from the message returned by `openpgp.readMessage`, and verify the(/each) signature as a detached signature by passing the signature and a new message containing only the data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. When decrypting and verifying signed+encrypted messages, decrypt and verify the message in two steps, by first calling `openpgp.decrypt` without `verificationKeys`, and then passing the returned signature(s) and a new message containing the decrypted data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. | ||||
| CVE-2025-52556 | 2025-06-23 | N/A | ||
| rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-42459 | 3 Elliptic Project, Indutny, Redhat | 5 Elliptic, Elliptic, Acm and 2 more | 2025-06-20 | 5.3 Medium |
| In the Elliptic package 6.5.6 for Node.js, EDDSA signature malleability occurs because there is a missing signature length check, and thus zero-valued bytes can be removed or appended. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48948 | 2 Indutny, Nodejs | 2 Elliptic, Elliptic | 2025-06-20 | 4.8 Medium |
| The Elliptic package 6.5.7 for Node.js, in its for ECDSA implementation, does not correctly verify valid signatures if the hash contains at least four leading 0 bytes and when the order of the elliptic curve's base point is smaller than the hash, because of an _truncateToN anomaly. This leads to valid signatures being rejected. Legitimate transactions or communications may be incorrectly flagged as invalid. | ||||
| CVE-2023-25718 | 1 Connectwise | 1 Control | 2025-06-20 | 9.8 Critical |
| In ConnectWise Control through 22.9.10032 (formerly known as ScreenConnect), after an executable file is signed, additional instructions can be added without invalidating the signature, such as instructions that result in offering the end user a (different) attacker-controlled executable file. It is plausible that the end user may allow the download and execution of this file to proceed. There are ConnectWise Control configuration options that add mitigations. | ||||
| CVE-2023-42811 | 2 Aes-gcm Project, Fedoraproject | 2 Aes-gcm, Fedora | 2025-06-18 | 4.7 Medium |
| aes-gcm is a pure Rust implementation of the AES-GCM. Starting in version 0.10.0 and prior to version 0.10.3, in the AES GCM implementation of decrypt_in_place_detached, the decrypted ciphertext (i.e. the correct plaintext) is exposed even if tag verification fails. If a program using the `aes-gcm` crate's `decrypt_in_place*` APIs accesses the buffer after decryption failure, it will contain a decryption of an unauthenticated input. Depending on the specific nature of the program this may enable Chosen Ciphertext Attacks (CCAs) which can cause a catastrophic breakage of the cipher including full plaintext recovery. Version 0.10.3 contains a fix for this issue. | ||||