Filtered by CWE-347
Filtered by vendor Subscriptions
Total 487 CVE
CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2023-50228 1 Parallels 1 Parallels Desktop 2024-11-21 N/A
Parallels Desktop Updater Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows local attackers to escalate privileges on affected installations of Parallels Desktop. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target host system in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the Updater service. The issue results from the lack of proper verification of a cryptographic signature. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code in the context of root. . Was ZDI-CAN-21817.
CVE-2023-4807 1 Openssl 1 Openssl 2024-11-21 7.8 High
Issue summary: The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation contains a bug that might corrupt the internal state of applications on the Windows 64 platform when running on newer X86_64 processors supporting the AVX512-IFMA instructions. Impact summary: If in an application that uses the OpenSSL library an attacker can influence whether the POLY1305 MAC algorithm is used, the application state might be corrupted with various application dependent consequences. The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation in OpenSSL does not save the contents of non-volatile XMM registers on Windows 64 platform when calculating the MAC of data larger than 64 bytes. Before returning to the caller all the XMM registers are set to zero rather than restoring their previous content. The vulnerable code is used only on newer x86_64 processors supporting the AVX512-IFMA instructions. The consequences of this kind of internal application state corruption can be various - from no consequences, if the calling application does not depend on the contents of non-volatile XMM registers at all, to the worst consequences, where the attacker could get complete control of the application process. However given the contents of the registers are just zeroized so the attacker cannot put arbitrary values inside, the most likely consequence, if any, would be an incorrect result of some application dependent calculations or a crash leading to a denial of service. The POLY1305 MAC algorithm is most frequently used as part of the CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) algorithm. The most common usage of this AEAD cipher is with TLS protocol versions 1.2 and 1.3 and a malicious client can influence whether this AEAD cipher is used by the server. This implies that server applications using OpenSSL can be potentially impacted. However we are currently not aware of any concrete application that would be affected by this issue therefore we consider this a Low severity security issue. As a workaround the AVX512-IFMA instructions support can be disabled at runtime by setting the environment variable OPENSSL_ia32cap: OPENSSL_ia32cap=:~0x200000 The FIPS provider is not affected by this issue.
CVE-2023-49646 1 Zoom 4 Meeting Software Development Kit, Video Software Development Kit, Virtual Desktop Infrastructure and 1 more 2024-11-21 6.4 Medium
Improper authentication in some Zoom clients before version 5.16.5 may allow an authenticated user to conduct a denial of service via network access.
CVE-2023-49079 1 Misskey 1 Misskey 2024-11-21 9.3 Critical
Misskey is an open source, decentralized social media platform. Misskey's missing signature validation allows arbitrary users to impersonate any remote user. This issue has been patched in version 2023.11.1-beta.1.
CVE-2023-47122 1 Sigstore 1 Gitsign 2024-11-21 4.2 Medium
Gitsign is software for keyless Git signing using Sigstore. In versions of gitsign starting with 0.6.0 and prior to 0.8.0, Rekor public keys were fetched via the Rekor API, instead of through the local TUF client. If the upstream Rekor server happened to be compromised, gitsign clients could potentially be tricked into trusting incorrect signatures. There is no known compromise the default public good instance (`rekor.sigstore.dev`) - anyone using this instance is unaffected. This issue was fixed in v0.8.0. No known workarounds are available.
CVE-2023-46324 2 Free5gc, Golang 2 Udm, Go 2024-11-21 7.5 High
pkg/suci/suci.go in free5GC udm before 1.2.0, when Go before 1.19 is used, allows an Invalid Curve Attack because it may compute a shared secret via an uncompressed public key that has not been validated. An attacker can send arbitrary SUCIs to the UDM, which tries to decrypt them via both its private key and the attacker's public key.
CVE-2023-46234 3 Browserify, Debian, Redhat 3 Browserify-sign, Debian Linux, Openshift Distributed Tracing 2024-11-21 6.5 Medium
browserify-sign is a package to duplicate the functionality of node's crypto public key functions, much of this is based on Fedor Indutny's work on indutny/tls.js. An upper bound check issue in `dsaVerify` function allows an attacker to construct signatures that can be successfully verified by any public key, thus leading to a signature forgery attack. All places in this project that involve DSA verification of user-input signatures will be affected by this vulnerability. This issue has been patched in version 4.2.2.
CVE-2023-44077 2 Apple, Studionetworksolutions 2 Macos, Sharebrowser 2024-11-21 9.8 Critical
Studio Network Solutions ShareBrowser before 7.0 on macOS mishandles signature verification, aka PMP-2636.
CVE-2023-43660 1 Warpgate Project 1 Warpgate 2024-11-21 4.8 Medium
Warpgate is a smart SSH, HTTPS and MySQL bastion host for Linux that doesn't need special client apps. The SSH key verification for a user can be bypassed by sending an SSH key offer without a signature. This allows bypassing authentication under following conditions: 1. The attacker knows the username and a valid target name 2. The attacked knows the user's public key and 3. Only SSH public key authentication is required for the user account. This issue has been addressed in version 0.8.1. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
CVE-2023-43611 2 Apple, F5 21 Macos, Big-ip Access Policy Manager, Big-ip Advanced Firewall Manager and 18 more 2024-11-21 7.8 High
The BIG-IP Edge Client Installer on macOS does not follow best practices for elevating privileges during the installation process.  This vulnerability is due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2023-38418.  Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated
CVE-2023-42811 2 Aes-gcm Project, Fedoraproject 2 Aes-gcm, Fedora 2024-11-21 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.
CVE-2023-42806 1 Iohk 1 Hydra 2024-11-21 6.5 Medium
Hydra is the layer-two scalability solution for Cardano. Prior to version 0.13.0, not signing and verifying `$\mathsf{cid}$` allows an attacker (which must be a participant of this head) to use a snapshot from an old head instance with the same participants to close the head or contest the state with it. This can lead to an incorrect distribution of value (= value extraction attack; hard, but possible) or prevent the head to finalize because the value available is not consistent with the closed utxo state (= denial of service; easy). A patch is planned for version 0.13.0. As a workaround, rotate keys between heads so not to re-use keys and not result in the same multi-signature participants.
CVE-2023-41764 1 Microsoft 3 365 Apps, Office, Office Long Term Servicing Channel 2024-11-21 5.5 Medium
Microsoft Office Spoofing Vulnerability
CVE-2023-41744 2 Acronis, Apple 3 Agent, Cyber Protect, Macos 2024-11-21 7.8 High
Local privilege escalation due to unrestricted loading of unsigned libraries. The following products are affected: Acronis Agent (macOS) before build 30600, Acronis Cyber Protect 15 (macOS) before build 35979.
CVE-2023-41337 1 Dena 1 H2o 2024-11-21 6.1 Medium
h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. In version 2.3.0-beta2 and prior, when h2o is configured to listen to multiple addresses or ports with each of them using different backend servers managed by multiple entities, a malicious backend entity that also has the opportunity to observe or inject packets exchanged between the client and h2o may misdirect HTTPS requests going to other backends and observe the contents of that HTTPS request being sent. The attack involves a victim client trying to resume a TLS connection and an attacker redirecting the packets to a different address or port than that intended by the client. The attacker must already have been configured by the administrator of h2o to act as a backend to one of the addresses or ports that the h2o instance listens to. Session IDs and tickets generated by h2o are not bound to information specific to the server address, port, or the X.509 certificate, and therefore it is possible for an attacker to force the victim connection to wrongfully resume against a different server address or port on which the same h2o instance is listening. Once a TLS session is misdirected to resume to a server address / port that is configured to use an attacker-controlled server as the backend, depending on the configuration, HTTPS requests from the victim client may be forwarded to the attacker's server. An H2O instance is vulnerable to this attack only if the instance is configured to listen to different addresses or ports using the listen directive at the host level and the instance is configured to connect to backend servers managed by multiple entities. A patch is available at commit 35760540337a47e5150da0f4a66a609fad2ef0ab. As a workaround, one may stop using using host-level listen directives in favor of global-level ones.
CVE-2023-41037 1 Openpgpjs 1 Openpgpjs 2024-11-21 4.3 Medium
OpenPGP.js is a JavaScript implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. In affected versions OpenPGP Cleartext Signed Messages are cryptographically signed messages where the signed text is readable without special tools. These messages typically contain a "Hash: ..." header declaring the hash algorithm used to compute the signature digest. OpenPGP.js up to v5.9.0 ignored any data preceding the "Hash: ..." texts when verifying the signature. As a result, malicious parties could add arbitrary text to a third-party Cleartext Signed Message, to lead the victim to believe that the arbitrary text was signed. A user or application is vulnerable to said attack vector if it verifies the CleartextMessage by only checking the returned `verified` property, discarding the associated `data` information, and instead _visually trusting_ the contents of the original message. Since `verificationResult.data` would always contain the actual signed data, users and apps that check this information are not vulnerable. Similarly, given a CleartextMessage object, retrieving the data using `getText()` or the `text` field returns only the contents that are considered when verifying the signature. Finally, re-armoring a CleartextMessage object (using `armor()` will also result in a "sanitised" version, with the extraneous text being removed. This issue has been addressed in version 5.10.1 (current stable version) which will reject messages when calling `openpgp.readCleartextMessage()` and in version 4.10.11 (legacy version) which will will reject messages when calling `openpgp.cleartext.readArmored()`. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should check the contents of `verificationResult.data` to see what data was actually signed, rather than visually trusting the contents of the armored message.
CVE-2023-40727 1 Siemens 1 Qms Automotive 2024-11-21 7.8 High
A vulnerability has been identified in QMS Automotive (All versions < V12.39). The QMS.Mobile module of the affected application uses weak outdated application signing mechanism. This could allow an attacker to tamper the application code.
CVE-2023-40178 2 Node-saml, Node Saml Project 2 Node-saml, Node Saml 2024-11-21 5.3 Medium
Node-SAML is a SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. The lack of checking of current timestamp allows a LogoutRequest XML to be reused multiple times even when the current time is past the NotOnOrAfter. This could impact the user where they would be logged out from an expired LogoutRequest. In bigger contexts, if LogoutRequests are sent out in mass to different SPs, this could impact many users on a large scale. This issue was patched in version 4.0.5.
CVE-2023-40012 1 Trailofbits 1 Uthenticode 2024-11-21 5.9 Medium
uthenticode is a small cross-platform library for partially verifying Authenticode digital signatures. Versions of uthenticode prior to the 2.x series did not check Extended Key Usages in certificates, in violation of the Authenticode X.509 certificate profile. As a result, a malicious user could produce a "signed" PE file that uthenticode would verify and consider valid using an X.509 certificate that isn't entitled to produce code signatures (e.g., a SSL certificate). By design, uthenticode does not perform full-chain validation. However, the absence of EKU validation was an unintended oversight. The 2.0.0 release series includes EKU checks. There are no workarounds to this vulnerability.
CVE-2023-39969 1 Trailofbits 1 Uthenticode 2024-11-21 9.1 Critical
uthenticode is a small cross-platform library for partially verifying Authenticode digital signatures. Version 1.0.9 of uthenticode hashed the entire file rather than hashing sections by virtual address, in violation of the Authenticode specification. As a result, an attacker could modify code within a binary without changing its Authenticode hash, making it appear valid from uthenticode's perspective. Versions of uthenticode prior to 1.0.9 are not vulnerable to this attack, nor are versions in the 2.x series. By design, uthenticode does not perform full-chain validation. However, the malleability of signature verification introduced in 1.0.9 was an unintended oversight. The 2.x series addresses the vulnerability. Versions prior to 1.0.9 are also not vulnerable, but users are encouraged to upgrade rather than downgrade. There are no workarounds to this vulnerability.