Vulnerabilities (CVE)

A potential security vulnerability has been identified in the HP Linux Imaging and Printing Software documentation. This potential vulnerability is due to the use of a weak code signing key, Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA).

A vulnerability exists in Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk® Service Platform that allows a malicious user to obtain the service token and use it for authentication on another FTSP directory. This is due to the lack of digital signing between the FTSP service token and directory.  If exploited, a malicious user could potentially retrieve user information and modify settings without any authentication.

Improper verification of cryptographic signature in the installer for Zoom Workplace VDI Client for Windows may allow an authenticated user to conduct an escalation of privilege via local access.

In GnuPG through 2.4.8, if a signed message has \f at the end of a plaintext line, an adversary can construct a modified message that places additional text after the signed material, such that signature verification of the modified message succeeds (although an "invalid armor" message is printed during verification). This is related to use of \f as a marker to denote truncation of a long plaintext line.

An issue was discovered in Foxit PDF and Editor for Windows and macOS before 13.2 and 2025 before 2025.2. A crafted PDF can use JavaScript to alter annotation content and subsequently clear the file's modification status via JavaScript interfaces. This circumvents digital signature verification by hiding document modifications, allowing an attacker to mislead users about the document's integrity and compromise the trustworthiness of signed PDFs.

GoSign Desktop versions 2.4.0 and earlier use an unsigned update manifest for distributing application updates. The manifest contains package URLs and SHA-256 hashes but is not digitally signed, so its authenticity relies solely on the underlying TLS channel. In affected versions, TLS certificate validation can be disabled when a proxy is configured, allowing an attacker who can intercept network traffic to supply a malicious update manifest and corresponding package with a matching hash. This c ... GoSign Desktop versions 2.4.0 and earlier use an unsigned update manifest for distributing application updates. The manifest contains package URLs and SHA-256 hashes but is not digitally signed, so its authenticity relies solely on the underlying TLS channel. In affected versions, TLS certificate validation can be disabled when a proxy is configured, allowing an attacker who can intercept network traffic to supply a malicious update manifest and corresponding package with a matching hash. This can cause the client to download and install a tampered update, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the GoSign Desktop user on Windows and macOS, or with elevated privileges on some Linux deployments. A local attacker who can modify proxy settings may also abuse this behavior to escalate privileges by forcing installation of a crafted update.

Show More

XML-Sig versions 0.27 through 0.67 for Perl incorrectly validates XML files if signatures are omitted. An attacker can remove the signature from the XML document to make it pass the verification check. XML-Sig is a Perl module to validate signatures on XML files.  An unsigned XML file should return an error message.  The affected versions return true when attempting to validate an XML file that contains no signatures.

Ever Gauzy v0.281.9 contains a JWT authentication vulnerability that allows attackers to exploit weak HMAC secret key implementation. Attackers can leverage the exposed JWT token to authenticate and gain unauthorized access with administrative permissions.

A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Tahoe 26.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.3. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data.

A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Tahoe 26.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.3. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.

A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1, macOS Sonoma 14.8.2. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.

A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data.

Multiple vulnerabilities in Aqara Hub firmware update process in the Camera Hub G3 4.1.9_0027, Hub M2 4.3.6_0027, and Hub M3 4.3.6_0025 devices, allow attackers to install malicious firmware without proper verification. The device fails to validate firmware signatures during updates, uses outdated cryptographic methods that can be exploited to forge valid signatures, and exposes information through improperly initialized memory.

A improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.14, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.21, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a craf ... A improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.14, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.21, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message.

Show More

ALTCHA is privacy-first software for captcha and bot protection. A cryptographic semantic binding flaw in ALTCHA libraries allows challenge payload splicing, which may enable replay attacks. The HMAC signature does not unambiguously bind challenge parameters to the nonce, allowing an attacker to reinterpret a valid proof-of-work submission with a modified expiration value. This may allow previously solved challenges to be reused beyond their intended lifetime, depending on server-side replay han ... ALTCHA is privacy-first software for captcha and bot protection. A cryptographic semantic binding flaw in ALTCHA libraries allows challenge payload splicing, which may enable replay attacks. The HMAC signature does not unambiguously bind challenge parameters to the nonce, allowing an attacker to reinterpret a valid proof-of-work submission with a modified expiration value. This may allow previously solved challenges to be reused beyond their intended lifetime, depending on server-side replay handling and deployment assumptions. The vulnerability primarily impacts abuse-prevention mechanisms such as rate limiting and bot mitigation. It does not directly affect data confidentiality or integrity. This issue has been addressed by enforcing explicit semantic separation between challenge parameters and the nonce during HMAC computation. Users are advised to upgrade to patched versions, which include version 1.0.0 of the altcha Golang package, version 1.0.0 of the altcha Rubygem, version 1.0.0 of the altcha pip package, version 1.0.0 of the altcha Erlang package, version 1.4.1 of the altcha-lib npm package, version 1.3.1 of the altcha-org/altcha Composer package, and version 1.3.0 of the org.altcha:altcha Maven package. As a mitigation, implementations may append a delimiter to the end of the `salt` value prior to HMAC computation (for example, `<salt>?expires=<time>&`). This prevents ambiguity between parameters and the nonce and is backward-compatible with existing implementations, as the delimiter is treated as a standard URL parameter separator.

Show More

Foxit PDF Editor and Reader before 2025.2.1 allow signature spoofing via triggers. An attacker can embed triggers (e.g., JavaScript) in a PDF document that execute during the signing process. When a signer reviews the document, the content appears normal. However, once the signature is applied, the triggers modify content on other pages or optional content layers without explicit warning. This can cause the signed PDF to differ from what the signer saw, undermining the trustworthiness of the dig ... Foxit PDF Editor and Reader before 2025.2.1 allow signature spoofing via triggers. An attacker can embed triggers (e.g., JavaScript) in a PDF document that execute during the signing process. When a signer reviews the document, the content appears normal. However, once the signature is applied, the triggers modify content on other pages or optional content layers without explicit warning. This can cause the signed PDF to differ from what the signer saw, undermining the trustworthiness of the digital signature. The fixed versions are 2025.2.1, 14.0.1, and 13.2.1.

Show More

Node-SAML is a SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In versions 5.0.1 and below, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. This issue is fixed in version 5.1.0.

Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30264, 20.005.30793, 25.001.20982, 24.001.30273, 20.005.30803 and earlier are affected by an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to gain limited unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.

Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30264, 20.005.30793, 25.001.20982, 24.001.30273, 20.005.30803 and earlier are affected by an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass cryptographic protections and gain limited unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction.

Improper verification of cryptographic signatures in the patch management component of Ivanti Endpoint Manager prior to version 2024 SU4 SR1 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code. User Interaction is required.

The ruby-saml library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. ruby-saml versions up to and including 1.12.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-25292. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, generating entirely different document structures from the same input. This allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0.

The ruby-saml library implements the client side of an SAML authorization. Versions up to and including 1.12.4, are vulnerable to authentication bypass through the libxml2 canonicalization process used by Nokogiri for document transformation, which allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. When libxml2’s canonicalization is invoked on an invalid XML input, it may return an empty string rather than a canonicalized node. ruby-saml then proceeds to compute the DigestValue over this ... The ruby-saml library implements the client side of an SAML authorization. Versions up to and including 1.12.4, are vulnerable to authentication bypass through the libxml2 canonicalization process used by Nokogiri for document transformation, which allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. When libxml2’s canonicalization is invoked on an invalid XML input, it may return an empty string rather than a canonicalized node. ruby-saml then proceeds to compute the DigestValue over this empty string, treating it as if canonicalization succeeded. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0.

Show More

An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 8.0.0, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.9 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message.

A vulnerability has been identified in Building X - Security Manager Edge Controller (ACC-AP) (All versions). Affected devices do not properly check the integrity of firmware updates. This could allow a local attacker to upload a maliciously modified firmware onto the device. In a second scenario, a remote attacker who is able to intercept the transfer of a valid firmware from the server to the device could modify the firmware "on the fly".

auth0/node-jws is a JSON Web Signature implementation for Node.js. In versions 3.2.2 and earlier and version 4.0.0, auth0/node-jws has an improper signature verification vulnerability when using the HS256 algorithm under specific conditions. Applications are affected when they use the jws.createVerify() function for HMAC algorithms and use user-provided data from the JSON Web Signature protected header or payload in HMAC secret lookup routines, which can allow attackers to bypass signature verif ... auth0/node-jws is a JSON Web Signature implementation for Node.js. In versions 3.2.2 and earlier and version 4.0.0, auth0/node-jws has an improper signature verification vulnerability when using the HS256 algorithm under specific conditions. Applications are affected when they use the jws.createVerify() function for HMAC algorithms and use user-provided data from the JSON Web Signature protected header or payload in HMAC secret lookup routines, which can allow attackers to bypass signature verification. This issue has been patched in versions 3.2.3 and 4.0.1.

Show More

In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data in the digestAlgorithm.parameters field during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Consequently, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication. This is a variant of CVE-2006-4790 and CVE-201 ... In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data in the digestAlgorithm.parameters field during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Consequently, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication. This is a variant of CVE-2006-4790 and CVE-2014-1568.

Show More

In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data after the encoded algorithm OID during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Similar to the flaw in the same version of strongSwan regarding digestAlgorithm.parameters, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used fo ... In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data after the encoded algorithm OID during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Similar to the flaw in the same version of strongSwan regarding digestAlgorithm.parameters, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication.

Show More

DataHub is an open-source metadata platform. Prior to version 0.8.45, the `StatelessTokenService` of the DataHub metadata service (GMS) does not verify the signature of JWT tokens. This allows an attacker to connect to DataHub instances as any user if Metadata Service authentication is enabled. This vulnerability occurs because the `StatelessTokenService` of the Metadata service uses the `parse` method of `io.jsonwebtoken.JwtParser`, which does not perform a verification of the cryptographic tok ... DataHub is an open-source metadata platform. Prior to version 0.8.45, the `StatelessTokenService` of the DataHub metadata service (GMS) does not verify the signature of JWT tokens. This allows an attacker to connect to DataHub instances as any user if Metadata Service authentication is enabled. This vulnerability occurs because the `StatelessTokenService` of the Metadata service uses the `parse` method of `io.jsonwebtoken.JwtParser`, which does not perform a verification of the cryptographic token signature. This means that JWTs are accepted regardless of the used algorithm. This issue may lead to an authentication bypass. Version 0.8.45 contains a patch for the issue. There are no known workarounds.

Show More

AWS Encryption SDK for Java versions 2.0.0 to 2.2.0 and less than 1.9.0 incorrectly validates some invalid ECDSA signatures.

Constellation is the first Confidential Kubernetes. The Constellation CVM image uses LUKS2-encrypted volumes for persistent storage. When opening an encrypted storage device, the CVM uses the libcryptsetup function crypt_activate_by_passhrase. If the VM is successful in opening the partition with the disk encryption key, it treats the volume as confidential. However, due to the unsafe handling of null keyslot algorithms in the cryptsetup 2.8.1, it is possible that the opened volume is not encryp ... Constellation is the first Confidential Kubernetes. The Constellation CVM image uses LUKS2-encrypted volumes for persistent storage. When opening an encrypted storage device, the CVM uses the libcryptsetup function crypt_activate_by_passhrase. If the VM is successful in opening the partition with the disk encryption key, it treats the volume as confidential. However, due to the unsafe handling of null keyslot algorithms in the cryptsetup 2.8.1, it is possible that the opened volume is not encrypted at all. Cryptsetup prior to version 2.8.1 does not report an error when processing LUKS2-formatted disks that use the cipher_null-ecb algorithm in the keyslot encryption field. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.24.0.

Show More

The verify function in lib/elliptic/eddsa/index.js in the Elliptic package before 6.5.6 for Node.js omits "sig.S().gte(sig.eddsa.curve.n) || sig.S().isNeg()" validation.

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.

Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Github: Playwright allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over an adjacent network.

In JetBrains ReSharper before 2025.2.4 missing signature verification in DPA Collector allows local privilege escalation

Improper authentication in the API authentication middleware of HCL DevOps Loop allows authentication tokens to be accepted without proper validation of their expiration and cryptographic signature. As a result, an attacker could potentially use expired or tampered tokens to gain unauthorized access to sensitive resources and perform actions with elevated privileges.

In IGEL OS before 11, Secure Boot can be bypassed because the igel-flash-driver module improperly verifies a cryptographic signature. Ultimately, a crafted root filesystem can be mounted from an unverified SquashFS image.

This issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0. Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes. When spark.network.crypto.enabled is set to true (it is set to false by default), but spark.network.crypto.cipher is not explicitly configured, Spark defaults to AES in CTR mode (AES/CTR/NoPadding), which provides encryption without authentication. This vulnerability allows a man-in ... This issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0. Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes. When spark.network.crypto.enabled is set to true (it is set to false by default), but spark.network.crypto.cipher is not explicitly configured, Spark defaults to AES in CTR mode (AES/CTR/NoPadding), which provides encryption without authentication. This vulnerability allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to modify encrypted RPC traffic undetected by flipping bits in ciphertext, potentially compromising heartbeat messages or application data and affecting the integrity of Spark workflows. To mitigate this issue, users should either configure spark.network.crypto.cipher to AES/GCM/NoPadding to enable authenticated encryption or enable SSL encryption by setting spark.ssl.enabled to true, which provides stronger transport security.

Show More

NCR SelfServ ATMs running APTRA XFS 05.01.00 do not properly validate softare updates for the bunch note acceptor (BNA), enabling an attacker with physical access to internal ATM components to restart the host computer and execute arbitrary code with SYSTEM privileges because while booting, the update process looks for CAB archives on removable media and executes a specific file without first validating the signature of the CAB archive.

A firmware update vulnerability exists in the boa formUpload functionality of Realtek rtl819x Jungle SDK v3.4.11. A specially crafted network packets can lead to arbitrary firmware update. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

When Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) authentication is enabled and the 'Validate Identity Provider Certificate' option is disabled (unchecked), improper verification of signatures in PAN-OS SAML authentication enables an unauthenticated network-based attacker to access protected resources. The attacker must have network access to the vulnerable server to exploit this vulnerability. This issue affects PAN-OS 9.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.1.3; PAN-OS 9.0 versions earlier than PAN-OS ... When Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) authentication is enabled and the 'Validate Identity Provider Certificate' option is disabled (unchecked), improper verification of signatures in PAN-OS SAML authentication enables an unauthenticated network-based attacker to access protected resources. The attacker must have network access to the vulnerable server to exploit this vulnerability. This issue affects PAN-OS 9.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.1.3; PAN-OS 9.0 versions earlier than PAN-OS 9.0.9; PAN-OS 8.1 versions earlier than PAN-OS 8.1.15, and all versions of PAN-OS 8.0 (EOL). This issue does not affect PAN-OS 7.1. This issue cannot be exploited if SAML is not used for authentication. This issue cannot be exploited if the 'Validate Identity Provider Certificate' option is enabled (checked) in the SAML Identity Provider Server Profile. Resources that can be protected by SAML-based single sign-on (SSO) authentication are: GlobalProtect Gateway, GlobalProtect Portal, GlobalProtect Clientless VPN, Authentication and Captive Portal, PAN-OS next-generation firewalls (PA-Series, VM-Series) and Panorama web interfaces, Prisma Access In the case of GlobalProtect Gateways, GlobalProtect Portal, Clientless VPN, Captive Portal, and Prisma Access, an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the affected servers can gain access to protected resources if allowed by configured authentication and Security policies. There is no impact on the integrity and availability of the gateway, portal or VPN server. An attacker cannot inspect or tamper with sessions of regular users. In the worst case, this is a critical severity vulnerability with a CVSS Base Score of 10.0 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N). In the case of PAN-OS and Panorama web interfaces, this issue allows an unauthenticated attacker with network access to the PAN-OS or Panorama web interfaces to log in as an administrator and perform administrative actions. In the worst-case scenario, this is a critical severity vulnerability with a CVSS Base Score of 10.0 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). If the web interfaces are only accessible to a restricted management network, then the issue is lowered to a CVSS Base Score of 9.6 (CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H). Palo Alto Networks is not aware of any malicious attempts to exploit this vulnerability.

Show More