Search Results (721 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2026-28802 1 Authlib 1 Authlib 2026-04-16 9.8 Critical
Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. From version 1.6.5 to before version 1.6.7, previous tests involving passing a malicious JWT containing alg: none and an empty signature was passing the signature verification step without any changes to the application code when a failure was expected.. This issue has been patched in version 1.6.7.
CVE-2026-28432 1 Misskey 1 Misskey 2026-04-16 7.5 High
Misskey is an open source, federated social media platform. All Misskey servers prior to 2026.3.1 contain a vulnerability that allows bypassing HTTP signature verification. Although this is a vulnerability related to federation, it affects all servers regardless of whether federation is enabled or disabled. This vulnerability is fixed in 2026.3.1.
CVE-2026-20965 1 Microsoft 2 Azure Portal Windows Admin Center, Windows Admin Center 2026-04-16 7.5 High
Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Windows Admin Center allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.
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-2005-2181 1 Cisco 4 Ip Phone 7940, Ip Phone 7940 Firmware, Ip Phone 7960 and 1 more 2026-04-16 7.5 High
Cisco 7940/7960 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-2002-1706 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-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-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-2024-45341 1 Redhat 1 Enterprise Linux 2026-04-15 6.1 Medium
A certificate with a URI which has a IPv6 address with a zone ID may incorrectly satisfy a URI name constraint that applies to the certificate chain. Certificates containing URIs are not permitted in the web PKI, so this only affects users of private PKIs which make use of URIs.
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-2024-36277 2026-04-15 5.3 Medium
Improper verification of cryptographic signature issue exists in "FreeFrom - the nostr client" App versions prior to 1.3.5 for Android and iOS. The affected app cannot detect event data with invalid signatures.
CVE-2025-7937 1 Supermicro 1 Mbd-x12stw 2026-04-15 7.2 High
There is a vulnerability in the Supermicro BMC firmware validation logic at Supermicro MBD-X12STW . An attacker can update the system firmware with a specially crafted image.
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-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-2020-36843 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
The implementation of EdDSA in EdDSA-Java (aka ed25519-java) through 0.3.0 exhibits signature malleability and does not satisfy the SUF-CMA (Strong Existential Unforgeability under Chosen Message Attacks) property. This allows attackers to create new valid signatures different from previous signatures for a known message.
CVE-2025-40758 1 Mendix 2 Mendix, Saml 2026-04-15 8.7 High
A vulnerability has been identified in Mendix SAML (Mendix 10.12 compatible) (All versions < V4.0.3), Mendix SAML (Mendix 10.21 compatible) (All versions < V4.1.2), Mendix SAML (Mendix 9.24 compatible) (All versions < V3.6.21). Affected versions of the module insufficiently enforce signature validation and binding checks. This could allow unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack an account in specific SSO configurations.
CVE-2024-56161 2026-04-15 7.2 High
Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious CPU microcode resulting in loss of confidentiality and integrity of a confidential guest running under AMD SEV-SNP.
CVE-2024-13990 1 Microworld Technologies 1 Escan 2026-04-15 N/A
MicroWorld eScan AV's update mechanism failed to ensure authenticity and integrity of updates: update packages were delivered and accepted without robust cryptographic verification. As a result, an on-path attacker could perform a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack and substitute malicious update payloads for legitimate ones. The eScan AV client accepted these substituted packages and executed or loaded their components (including sideloaded DLLs and Java/installer payloads), enabling remote code execution on affected systems. MicroWorld eScan confirmed remediation of the update mechanism on 2023-07-31 but versioning details are unavailable. NOTE: MicroWorld eScan disputes the characterization in third-party reports, stating the issue relates to 2018–2019 and that controls were implemented then.
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`.