Export limit exceeded: 422031 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (1039 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2005-2182 | 1 Grandstream | 2 Bt-100, Bt-100 Firmware | 2026-04-16 | 7.5 High |
| Grandstream BudgeTone (BT) 100 Voice over IP (VoIP) phones do not properly check the Call-ID, branch, and tag values in a NOTIFY message to verify a subscription, which allows remote attackers to spoof messages such as the "Messages waiting" message. | ||||
| CVE-2002-1796 | 1 Hp | 5 Chaivm Ezloader, Laserjet 4100, Laserjet 4500 and 2 more | 2026-04-16 | 7.8 High |
| ChaiVM EZloader for HP color LaserJet 4500 and 4550 and HP LaserJet 4100 and 8150 does not properly verify JAR signatures for new services, which allows local users to load unauthorized Chai services. | ||||
| CVE-2002-1706 | 1 Cisco | 3 Ios, Ubr7100, Ubr7200 | 2026-04-16 | 7.5 High |
| Cisco IOS software 11.3 through 12.2 running on Cisco uBR7200 and uBR7100 series Universal Broadband Routers allows remote attackers to modify Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) settings via a DOCSIS file without a Message Integrity Check (MIC) signature, which is approved by the router. | ||||
| CVE-2026-39395 | 1 Sigstore | 1 Cosign | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. Prior to 3.0.6 and 2.6.3, cosign verify-blob-attestation may erroneously report a "Verified OK" result for attestations with malformed payloads or mismatched predicate types. For old-format bundles and detached signatures, this was due to a logic flaw in the error handling of the predicate type validation. For new-format bundles, the predicate type validation was bypassed completely. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.0.6 and 2.6.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-32614 | 1 Emmansun | 1 Gmsm | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| Go ShangMi (Commercial Cryptography) Library (GMSM) is a cryptographic library that covers the Chinese commercial cryptographic public algorithms SM2/SM3/SM4/SM9/ZUC. Prior to 0.41.1, the current SM9 decryption implementation contains an infinity-point ciphertext forgery vulnerability. The root cause is that, during decryption, the elliptic-curve point C1 in the ciphertext is only deserialized and checked to be on the curve, but the implementation does not explicitly reject the point at infinity. In the current implementation, an attacker can construct C1 as the point at infinity, causing the bilinear pairing result to degenerate into the identity element in the GT group. As a result, a critical part of the key derivation input becomes a predictable constant. An attacker who only knows the target user's UID can derive the decryption key material and then forge a ciphertext that passes the integrity check. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.41.1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-31335 | 2026-04-15 | 4 Medium | ||
| The OpenSAML C++ library before 3.3.1 allows forging of signed SAML messages via parameter manipulation (when using SAML bindings that rely on non-XML signatures). | ||||
| CVE-2025-47934 | 1 Openpgpjs | 1 Openpgpjs | 2026-04-15 | 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-2025-54419 | 1 Node-saml | 1 Node-saml | 2026-04-15 | 10 Critical |
| A SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In version 5.0.1, 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. To conduct the attack an attacker would need a validly signed document from the identity provider (IdP). This is fixed in version 5.1.0. | ||||
| CVE-2025-4371 | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium | ||
| A potential vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo 510 FHD and Performance FHD web cameras that could allow an attacker with physical access to write arbitrary firmware updates to the device over a USB connection. | ||||
| CVE-2025-27773 | 1 Simplesamlphp | 1 Saml2 | 2026-04-15 | 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-2025-54549 | 1 Arista | 1 Danz Monitoring Fabric | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium |
| Cryptographic validation of upgrade images could be circumventing by dropping a specifically crafted file into the upgrade ISO | ||||
| CVE-2024-1721 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in HYPR Passwordless on Windows allows Malicious Software Update.This issue affects HYPR Passwordless: before 9.1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-54150 | 2026-04-15 | 9.1 Critical | ||
| cjwt is a C JSON Web Token (JWT) Implementation. Algorithm confusion occurs when a system improperly verifies the type of signature used, allowing attackers to exploit the lack of distinction between signing methods. If the system doesn't differentiate between an HMAC signed token and an RS/EC/PS signed token during verification, it becomes vulnerable to this kind of attack. For instance, an attacker could craft a token with the alg field set to "HS256" while the server expects an asymmetric algorithm like "RS256". The server might mistakenly use the wrong verification method, such as using a public key as the HMAC secret, leading to unauthorised access. For RSA, the key can be computed from a few signatures. For Elliptic Curve (EC), two potential keys can be recovered from one signature. This can be used to bypass the signature mechanism if an application relies on asymmetrically signed tokens. This issue has been addressed in version 2.3.0 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2025-55278 | 1 Hcltech | 1 Devops Loop | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2025-6198 | 1 Supermicro | 1 Mbd-x13sem-f | 2026-04-15 | 7.2 High |
| There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC firmware validation logic at Supermicro MBD-X13SEM-F . An attacker can update the system firmware with a specially crafted image. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40778 | 1 Isc | 1 Bind 9 | 2026-04-15 | 8.6 High |
| Under certain circumstances, BIND is too lenient when accepting records from answers, allowing an attacker to inject forged data into the cache. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.39, 9.20.0 through 9.20.13, 9.21.0 through 9.21.12, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.39-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.13-S1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-30064 | 1 Cgm | 1 Clininet | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| An insufficiently secured internal function allows session generation for arbitrary users. The decodeParam function checks the JWT but does not verify which signing algorithm was used. As a result, an attacker can use the "ex:action" parameter in the VerifyUserByThrustedService function to generate a session for any user. | ||||
| CVE-2024-5912 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| An improper file signature check in Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR agent may allow an attacker to bypass the Cortex XDR agent's executable blocking capabilities and run untrusted executables on the device. This issue can be leveraged to execute untrusted software without being detected or blocked. | ||||
| CVE-2025-54369 | 1 Node-saml | 1 Node-saml | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2025-32060 | 1 Bosch | 1 Infotainment System Ecu | 2026-04-15 | 6.7 Medium |
| The system suffers from the absence of a kernel module signature verification. If an attacker can execute commands on behalf of root user (due to additional vulnerabilities), then he/she is also able to load custom kernel modules to the kernel space and execute code in the kernel context. Such a flaw can lead to taking control over the entire system. First identified on Nissan Leaf ZE1 manufactured in 2020. | ||||