Total
503 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-20021 | 1 Gentoo | 1 Portage | 2025-06-03 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| In Gentoo Portage before 3.0.47, there is missing PGP validation of executed code: the standalone emerge-webrsync downloads a .gpgsig file but does not perform signature verification. Unless emerge-webrsync is used, Portage is not vulnerable. | |||||
| CVE-2025-29915 | 1 Oisf | 1 Suricata | 2025-05-29 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| Suricata is a network Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Prevention System and Network Security Monitoring engine. The AF_PACKET defrag option is enabled by default and allows AF_PACKET to re-assemble fragmented packets before reaching Suricata. However the default packet size in Suricata is based on the network interface MTU which leads to Suricata seeing truncated packets. Upgrade to Suricata 7.0.9, which uses better defaults and adds warnings for user configurations that may lead to issues. | |||||
| CVE-2025-3757 | 1 Openpubkey | 1 Openpubkey | 2025-05-23 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Versions of OpenPubkey library prior to 0.10.0 contained a vulnerability that would allow a specially crafted JWS to bypass signature verification. | |||||
| CVE-2025-4658 | 1 Openpubkey | 2 Openpubkey, Opkssh | 2025-05-22 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Versions of OpenPubkey library prior to 0.10.0 contained a vulnerability that would allow a specially crafted JWS to bypass signature verification. As OPKSSH depends on the OpenPubkey library for authentication, this vulnerability in OpenPubkey also applies to OPKSSH versions prior to 0.5.0 and would allow an attacker to bypass OPKSSH authentication. | |||||
| CVE-2022-41340 | 1 Secp256k1-js Project | 1 Secp256k1-js | 2025-05-22 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| The secp256k1-js package before 1.1.0 for Node.js implements ECDSA without required r and s validation, leading to signature forgery. | |||||
| CVE-2025-47934 | 2025-05-21 | N/A | 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-2025-47949 | 2025-05-21 | N/A | N/A | ||
| samlify is a Node.js library for SAML single sign-on. A Signature Wrapping attack has been found in samlify prior to version 2.10.0, allowing an attacker to forge a SAML Response to authenticate as any user. An attacker would need a signed XML document by the identity provider. Version 2.10.0 fixes the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2025-33074 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Azure Functions | 2025-05-12 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Microsoft Azure Functions allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network. | |||||
| CVE-2016-1000342 | 2 Bouncycastle, Debian | 2 Bc-java, Debian Linux | 2025-05-12 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier ECDSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up the signature and still have it validate, which in some cases may allow the introduction of 'invisible' data into a signed structure. | |||||
| CVE-2025-27773 | 2025-05-09 | N/A | 8.6 HIGH | ||
| The SimpleSAMLphp SAML2 library is a PHP library for SAML2 related functionality. Prior to versions 4.17.0 and 5.0.0-alpha.20, there is a signature confusion attack in the HTTPRedirect binding. An attacker with any signed SAMLResponse via the HTTP-Redirect binding can cause the application to accept an unsigned message. Versions 4.17.0 and 5.0.0-alpha.20 contain a fix for the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2024-21491 | 1 Svix | 1 Svix-webhooks | 2025-05-09 | N/A | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| Versions of the package svix before 1.17.0 are vulnerable to Authentication Bypass due to an issue in the verify function where signatures of different lengths are incorrectly compared. An attacker can bypass signature verification by providing a shorter signature that matches the beginning of the actual signature. **Note:** The attacker would need to know a victim uses the Rust library for verification,no easy way to automatically check that; and uses webhooks by a service that uses Svix, and then figure out a way to craft a malicious payload that will actually include all of the correct identifiers needed to trick the receivers to cause actual issues. | |||||
| CVE-2016-1000338 | 4 Bouncycastle, Canonical, Netapp and 1 more | 5 Legion-of-the-bouncy-castle-java-crytography-api, Ubuntu Linux, 7-mode Transition Tool and 2 more | 2025-05-05 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the DSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up the signature and still have it validate, which in some cases may allow the introduction of 'invisible' data into a signed structure. | |||||
| CVE-2021-26391 | 1 Amd | 98 Enterprise Driver, Radeon Pro Software, Radeon Pro W5500 and 95 more | 2025-05-01 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| Insufficient verification of multiple header signatures while loading a Trusted Application (TA) may allow an attacker with privileges to gain code execution in that TA or the OS/kernel. | |||||
| CVE-2022-42793 | 1 Apple | 3 Ipados, Iphone Os, Macos | 2025-04-22 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| An issue in code signature validation was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Big Sur 11.7, macOS Ventura 13, iOS 16, iOS 15.7 and iPadOS 15.7, macOS Monterey 12.6. An app may be able to bypass code signing checks. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43903 | 2025-04-21 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM | ||
| NSSCryptoSignBackend.cc in Poppler before 25.04.0 does not verify the adbe.pkcs7.sha1 signatures on documents, resulting in potential signature forgeries. | |||||
| CVE-2017-17848 | 2 Debian, Enigmail | 2 Debian Linux, Enigmail | 2025-04-20 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. In a variant of CVE-2017-17847, signature spoofing is possible for multipart/related messages because a signed message part can be referenced with a cid: URI but not actually displayed. In other words, the entire containing message appears to be signed, but the recipient does not see any of the signed text. | |||||
| CVE-2017-12333 | 1 Cisco | 2 Nx-os, Unified Computing System | 2025-04-20 | 4.6 MEDIUM | 6.7 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability in Cisco NX-OS System Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to bypass signature verification when loading a software image. The vulnerability is due to insufficient NX-OS signature verification for software images. An authenticated, local attacker could exploit this vulnerability to bypass signature verification and load a crafted, unsigned software image on a targeted device. The attacker would need valid administrator credentials to perform this exploit. This vulnerability affects the following products running Cisco NX-OS System Software: Multilayer Director Switches, Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Nexus 7700 Series Switches, Unified Computing System Manager. Cisco Bug IDs: CSCvf25045, CSCvf31495. | |||||
| CVE-2017-8190 | 1 Huawei | 1 Fusionsphere Openstack | 2025-04-20 | 4.6 MEDIUM | 6.7 MEDIUM |
| FusionSphere OpenStack V100R006C00SPC102(NFV)has an improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability. The software does not verify the cryptographic signature. An attacker with high privilege may exploit this vulnerability to inject malicious software. | |||||
| CVE-2017-11400 | 1 Belden | 2 Tofino Xenon Security Appliance, Tofino Xenon Security Appliance Firmware | 2025-04-20 | 7.2 HIGH | 6.8 MEDIUM |
| An issue has been discovered on the Belden Hirschmann Tofino Xenon Security Appliance before 03.2.00. An incomplete firmware signature allows a local attacker to upgrade the equipment (kernel, file system) with unsigned, attacker-controlled, data. This occurs because the appliance_config file is signed but the .tar.sec file is unsigned. | |||||
| CVE-2017-17847 | 2 Debian, Enigmail | 2 Debian Linux, Enigmail | 2025-04-20 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. Signature spoofing is possible because the UI does not properly distinguish between an attachment signature, and a signature that applies to the entire containing message, aka TBE-01-021. This is demonstrated by an e-mail message with an attachment that is a signed e-mail message in message/rfc822 format. | |||||