Total
512 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-23610 | 1 Wire | 1 Wire-server | 2024-11-21 | 5.1 MEDIUM | 9.1 CRITICAL |
| 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 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. | |||||
| CVE-2022-23507 | 3 Tendermint-light-client-js Project, Tendermint-light-client-verifier Project, Tendermint-light-client Project | 3 Tendermint-light-client-js, Tendermint-light-client-verifier, Tendermint-light-client | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.4 MEDIUM |
| Tendermint is a high-performance blockchain consensus engine for Byzantine fault tolerant applications. Versions prior to 0.28.0 contain a potential attack via Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature, affecting anyone using the tendermint-light-client and related packages to perform light client verification (e.g. IBC-rs, Hermes). The light client does not check that the chain IDs of the trusted and untrusted headers match, resulting in a possible attack vector where someone who finds a header from an untrusted chain that satisfies all other verification conditions (e.g. enough overlapping validator signatures) could fool a light client. The attack vector is currently theoretical, and no proof-of-concept exists yet to exploit it on live networks. This issue is patched in version 0.28.0. There are no workarounds. | |||||
| CVE-2022-21134 | 1 Reolink | 2 Rlc-410w, Rlc-410w Firmware | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| A firmware update vulnerability exists in the "update" firmware checks functionality of reolink RLC-410W v3.0.0.136_20121102. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability. | |||||
| CVE-2022-20944 | 1 Cisco | 20 Catalyst 9200, Catalyst 9200cx, Catalyst 9200l and 17 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 6.1 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability in the software image verification functionality of Cisco IOS XE Software for Cisco Catalyst 9200 Series Switches could allow an unauthenticated, physical attacker to execute unsigned code at system boot time. This vulnerability is due to an improper check in the code function that manages the verification of the digital signatures of system image files during the initial boot process. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by loading unsigned software on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to boot a malicious software image or execute unsigned code and bypass the image verification check part of the boot process of the affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker needs either unauthenticated physical access to the device or privileged access to the root shell on the device. Note: In Cisco IOS XE Software releases 16.11.1 and later, root shell access is protected by the Consent Token mechanism. However, an attacker with level-15 privileges could easily downgrade the Cisco IOS XE Software running on a device to a release where root shell access is more readily available. | |||||
| CVE-2022-20929 | 1 Cisco | 1 Enterprise Nfv Infrastructure Software | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| A vulnerability in the upgrade signature verification of Cisco Enterprise NFV Infrastructure Software (NFVIS) could allow an unauthenticated, local attacker to provide an unauthentic upgrade file for upload. This vulnerability is due to insufficient cryptographic signature verification of upgrade files. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing an administrator with an unauthentic upgrade file. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to fully compromise the Cisco NFVIS system. | |||||
| CVE-2021-44878 | 1 Pac4j | 1 Pac4j | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| If an OpenID Connect provider supports the "none" algorithm (i.e., tokens with no signature), pac4j v5.3.0 (and prior) does not refuse it without an explicit configuration on its side or for the "idtoken" response type which is not secure and violates the OpenID Core Specification. The "none" algorithm does not require any signature verification when validating the ID tokens, which allows the attacker to bypass the token validation by injecting a malformed ID token using "none" as the value of "alg" key in the header with an empty signature value. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43572 | 1 Starkbank | 1 Ecdsa-python | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| The verify function in the Stark Bank Python ECDSA library (aka starkbank-escada or ecdsa-python) before 2.0.1 fails to check that the signature is non-zero, which allows attackers to forge signatures on arbitrary messages. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43571 | 1 Starkbank | 1 Ecdsa-node | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| The verify function in the Stark Bank Node.js ECDSA library (ecdsa-node) 1.1.2 fails to check that the signature is non-zero, which allows attackers to forge signatures on arbitrary messages. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43570 | 1 Starkbank | 1 Ecdsa-java | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| The verify function in the Stark Bank Java ECDSA library (ecdsa-java) 1.0.0 fails to check that the signature is non-zero, which allows attackers to forge signatures on arbitrary messages. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43569 | 1 Starkbank | 1 Ecdsa-dotnet | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| The verify function in the Stark Bank .NET ECDSA library (ecdsa-dotnet) 1.3.1 fails to check that the signature is non-zero, which allows attackers to forge signatures on arbitrary messages. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43568 | 1 Starkbank | 1 Elixir Ecdsa | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| The verify function in the Stark Bank Elixir ECDSA library (ecdsa-elixir) 1.0.0 fails to check that the signature is non-zero, which allows attackers to forge signatures on arbitrary messages. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43393 | 1 St | 4 J-safe3, J-safe3 Firmware, Stsafe-j and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | 1.9 LOW | 6.2 MEDIUM |
| 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 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. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43392 | 1 St | 4 J-safe3, J-safe3 Firmware, Stsafe-j and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | 1.9 LOW | 6.2 MEDIUM |
| 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 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. | |||||
| CVE-2021-43074 | 1 Fortinet | 4 Fortios, Fortiproxy, Fortiswitch and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability [CWE-347] in FortiWeb 6.4 all versions, 6.3.16 and below, 6.2 all versions, 6.1 all versions, 6.0 all versions; FortiOS 7.0.3 and below, 6.4.8 and below, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions; FortiSwitch 7.0.3 and below, 6.4.10 and below, 6.2 all versions, 6.0 all versions; FortiProxy 7.0.1 and below, 2.0.7 and below, 1.2 all versions, 1.1 all versions, 1.0 all versions may allow an attacker to decrypt portions of the administrative session management cookie if able to intercept the latter. | |||||
| CVE-2021-41832 | 1 Apache | 1 Openoffice | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| It is possible for an attacker to manipulate documents to appear to be signed by a trusted source. All versions of Apache OpenOffice up to 4.1.10 are affected. Users are advised to update to version 4.1.11. See CVE-2021-25635 for the LibreOffice advisory. | |||||
| CVE-2021-41831 | 1 Apache | 1 Openoffice | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| It is possible for an attacker to manipulate the timestamp of signed documents. All versions of Apache OpenOffice up to 4.1.10 are affected. Users are advised to update to version 4.1.11. See CVE-2021-25634 for the LibreOffice advisory. | |||||
| CVE-2021-41830 | 1 Apache | 1 Openoffice | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| It is possible for an attacker to manipulate signed documents and macros to appear to come from a trusted source. All versions of Apache OpenOffice up to 4.1.10 are affected. Users are advised to update to version 4.1.11. See CVE-2021-25633 for the LibreOffice advisory. | |||||
| CVE-2021-40326 | 2 Foxit, Microsoft | 4 Pdf Editor, Pdf Reader, Phantompdf and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| Foxit PDF Reader before 11.1 and PDF Editor before 11.1, and PhantomPDF before 10.1.6, mishandle hidden and incremental data in signed documents. An attacker can write to an arbitrary file, and display controlled contents, during signature verification. | |||||
| CVE-2021-40045 | 1 Huawei | 3 Emui, Harmonyos, Magic Ui | 2024-11-21 | 2.1 LOW | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| There is a vulnerability of signature verification mechanism failure in system upgrade through recovery mode.Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality. | |||||
| CVE-2021-3680 | 1 Showdoc | 1 Showdoc | 2024-11-21 | 4.0 MEDIUM | 4.9 MEDIUM |
| showdoc is vulnerable to Missing Cryptographic Step | |||||