Base de CVEs

IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 could allow a remote attacker to bypass authentication by forging valid JSON Web Signatures due to improper verification of cryptographic signatures.

IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper verification of cryptographic signatures.

A missing integrity verification vulnerability in the Windows client software for ClearPass Policy Manager could allow malicious users on a local instance to elevate their user privileges. A successful exploit could allow these users to execute attacker-supplied code with elevated privileges on the local system.

Cryptographic Issue when processing non-ELF partitions, authentication and signature checks are bypassed, allowing unsigned or corrupted images to be mounted and processed.

In Progress® Telerik® Fiddler® Classic for Windows, versions prior to v6.0.20262.10021, the integrity check applied to the external helper tools launched by the application is insufficient. Before executing a helper tool, the application only verifies that the file carries a valid Authenticode signature whose certificate subject name matches a broad allow list of publisher name fragments, rather than verifying that the file is the specific executable shipped with that version of the product. A local threat actor with low privileges who replaces one of these helper executables with any other validly signed binary from an allow-listed publisher can cause the substituted binary to be executed by the application, including with Administrator privileges for the tools that request elevation, resulting in privilege escalation and execution of unintended code. Successful exploitation requires the user to launch the affected external tool and to approve the elevation prompt without noticing that it refers to a different executable.

In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, BLS12_381BasicScheme.keyValidate, and so BLSPublicKeyParameters and every BasicScheme, MessageAugmentation and ProofOfPossession verify and aggregateVerify that gate on it, accepted a public key built on a foreign ECCurve that merely shares BLS12-381's field characteristic. The prime-order subgroup check trusts a point's own curve to name its cofactor, since ECPoint.satisfiesOrder returns true outright when the curve's cofactor is one, so a point on a curve with a different equation and a cofactor forged to one passed keyValidate despite not being a G1 point at all. In BC's pairing implementation such a point contributes the identity in the target group, so an aggregate signature verified against a set of public keys including it is accepted even though it contains no signature for that key and message pair, admitting a phantom signer. keyValidate now first confirms that the point's curve carries exactly the canonical G1 field, equation, order and cofactor before any subgroup check. The issue is reachable only where an application constructs an ECPoint on an explicit, non-canonical curve and accepts it as an authority-bearing key; the standard 48-byte compressed-point decoder always supplies the canonical curve and was never affected.

Zebra before 4.4.0 contains a consensus divergence vulnerability in V5 transparent signature verification, computing a ZIP-244 digest for SIGHASH_SINGLE inputs lacking corresponding outputs instead of failing. Attackers can craft V5 transactions with fewer outputs than inputs that Zebra accepts and templates via getblocktemplate, producing blocks zcashd rejects.

Zebra zebrad 4.4.0 and zebra-script 6.0.0 fail to enforce a ZIP-244 consensus rule, accepting V5 transparent inputs signed with SIGHASH_SINGLE that lack a corresponding output. Attackers can broadcast crafted V5 transactions with more inputs than outputs that Zebra accepts but zcashd rejects, causing a network consensus split.

An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability exists in protocol gateways because the device does not properly verify the cryptographic authenticity of firmware images before installation. An attacker with high privileges and access to the firmware update interface could provide a specially crafted or modified firmware image, causing it to be installed on the device. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute unauthorized code, compromise the integrity and availability of the device, and persist malicious modifications across subsequent firmware updates.

Improper verification of cryptographic signature in the attribute certificate path validator (PkixAttrCertPathValidator, also used by PkixAttrCertPathBuilder) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows a remote attacker to have a forged X.509 attribute certificate accepted as valid, and so obtain whatever roles or privileges an application grants on the strength of its attributes, via an attribute certificate that names a trusted attribute authority as its issuer but was not signed by it, because the RFC 3281 validation steps check the holder and issuer certification paths, validity period, extensions and revocation status but never verify the attribute certificate's signature with the issuer's public key. Only applications that use these classes to validate attribute certificates are affected.

Tugtainer is a self-hosted app for automating updates of Docker containers. Prior to version 1.31.3, when the OIDC login flow completes, backend/modules/auth/providers/auth_oidc_provider.py decodes the id_token returned by the identity provider's token endpoint using jose.jwt.get_unverified_claims() instead of jwt.decode(). This skips signature verification, audience (aud) validation, issuer (iss) validation, and expiry (exp) checking entirely. The extracted claims (email/sub/preferred_username) are then used directly as the user_id for the resulting Tugtainer session. This issue has been patched in version 1.31.3.

NVIDIA GPU Display Driver for Linux contains a vulnerability in the kernel mode layer where improper verification of cryptographic signatures may cause signature verification to be bypassed under memory pressure. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to denial of service and data tampering.

The device's update mechanism includes conditions that allow unauthorized software packages to be accepted as authentic. During the boot process, the stock done function disables signature verification in the OPKG configuration before restoring optional packages from a writable, unsigned feed. Separately, the publicly distributed SDK contains the production private key whose corresponding public key is trusted by both stable and beta firmware builds. Either issue undermines package authenticity, and together they allow an attacker to provide packages that appear valid to the system. Even if signature enforcement is restored, the exposed production key enables an attacker to generate signatures that the device will continue to trust. An attacker who can supply a malicious package may be able to execute arbitrary code with root privileges during installation.

In Anjvision YSSD‑RTMP‑H5 firmware version 3.3.2.4, both the local and cloud update mechanisms apply new firmware without any cryptographic verification, relying only on basic hashing. This design allows an attacker who can reach the update routine to introduce untrusted firmware images that the device will accept as valid.

PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.13.0 until 2.14.0, PyJWT HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key is affected because HMAC key guard only recognizes top-level public JWK forms and misses container representations. This occurs when an application allows HMAC and asymmetric algorithms and passes a public JWK container as the raw key. As a result, public asymmetric key material is accepted as the HMAC secret. Consequently, an attacker who knows the public key can forge a token with arbitrary authenticated claims. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0.

PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.13.0 until 2.14.0, HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key in jwt/algorithms.py is affected because raw-JWK detector does not normalize accepted Unicode byte-order marks before checking for JSON. This occurs when a public JWK is prefixed with a UTF-8 BOM and used in a mixed-algorithm verification path. As a result, public JWK bypasses asymmetric-key detection and becomes the HMAC secret. Consequently, an attacker who knows the public key can forge authenticated tokens. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0.

PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.4.0 until 2.14.0, PyJWT HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key is affected because asymmetric-key guard relies on textual markers that are absent from DER encoding. This occurs when an application mixes HMAC and asymmetric algorithms and supplies a DER public key as the shared verification key. As a result, PyJWT uses public DER bytes as an HMAC secret. Consequently, an attacker who knows the public key can forge authenticated HMAC tokens. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0.

Under WOLFSSL_SMALL_CERT_VERIFY, ProcessPeerCertParse() runs the certificate signature check separately from the parse to keep peak memory down, then merges the two results, but it merged the signature result back only when the parse returned 0, so any parse error hid it. ParseCertRelative() reaches its validity-date, name-constraint and critical-extension checks only after ConfirmSignature() has passed, so splitting the signature check out inverts the precedence that makes "override date errors" a sound policy, and ASN_SIG_CONFIRM_E is never surfaced anywhere. The attacker needs no key material from the real PKI and no CA compromise: a self-made certificate carrying the expected subject name, the trusted CA's subject as its issuer, arbitrary bytes where the signature goes, a validity window in the past and the attacker's own key pair is sufficient. Affected builds define WOLFSSL_SMALL_CERT_VERIFY, which is off by default, is not set implicitly by any platform or preset header, and is not reachable from any CMake option; the autotools routes are --enable-lowresource, --enable-leantls, --enable-tinytls13=cert and --enable-tinytls13=mutualauth, and examples/configs/user_settings_embedded.h reaches it through WC_CFG_SMALL_CERT_VERIFY, which ships as 0, while neither --enable-all nor --enable-distro enables it at all. The application must additionally install a verify callback through wolfSSL_CTX_set_verify() or wolfSSL_set_verify() with WOLFSSL_VERIFY_PEER that returns 1 for ASN_BEFORE_DATE_E or ASN_AFTER_DATE_E; wolfSSL ships this exact shape as myVerify() in wolfssl/test.h under VERIFY_OVERRIDE_DATE_ERR, which examples/client -D selects. An application with no callback, or whose callback returns preverify for date errors, still fails the handshake, and wolfSSL_CertManagerVerifyBuffer() and wc_CheckCertSignature() report ASN_SIG_CONFIRM_E correctly in the same binary. TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 are affected in both directions, and DTLS reaches the same function; where the forged certificate is a chain certificate the callback's consent causes it to be cached in the WOLFSSL_CTX certificate manager, so an exposed deployment must restart the context or the process rather than merely reconnect.