Total
575 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-54419 | 1 Node-saml | 1 Node-saml | 2025-07-29 | 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-2025-20206 | 2 Cisco, Microsoft | 2 Secure Client, Windows | 2025-07-22 | 7.1 High |
| A vulnerability in the interprocess communication (IPC) channel of Cisco Secure Client for Windows could allow an authenticated, local attacker to perform a DLL hijacking attack on an affected device if the Secure Firewall Posture Engine, formerly HostScan, is installed on Cisco Secure Client. This vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of resources that are loaded by the application at run time. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted IPC message to a specific Cisco Secure Client process. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the affected machine with SYSTEM privileges. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid user credentials on the Windows system. | ||||
| CVE-2025-20143 | 1 Cisco | 2 Ios Xr, Ios Xr Software | 2025-07-22 | 6.7 Medium |
| A vulnerability in the boot process of Cisco IOS XR Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker with high privileges to bypass the Secure Boot functionality and load unverified software on an affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have root-system privileges on the affected device. This vulnerability is due to insufficient verification of modules in the software load process. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by manipulating the loaded binaries to bypass some of the integrity checks that are performed during the booting process. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to control the boot configuration, which could enable them to bypass the requirement to run Cisco-signed images or alter the security properties of the running system. Note: This vulnerability affects Cisco IOS XR Software, not the Secure Boot feature. Cisco has released software updates that address this vulnerability. There are no workarounds that address this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2024-11957 | 1 Kingsoft | 1 Wps Office | 2025-07-13 | N/A |
| Improper verification of the digital signature in ksojscore.dll in Kingsoft WPS Office in versions equal or less than 12.1.0.18276 on Windows allows an attacker to load an arbitrary Windows library. The patch released in version 12.2.0.16909 to mitigate CVE-2024-7262 was not restrictive enough. | ||||
| CVE-2024-23480 | 1 Zscaler | 1 Client Connector | 2025-07-12 | 7.5 High |
| A fallback mechanism in code sign checking on macOS may allow arbitrary code execution. This issue affects Zscaler Client Connector on MacOS prior to 4.2. | ||||
| CVE-2025-27773 | 1 Simplesamlphp | 1 Saml2 | 2025-07-12 | 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-2025-31489 | 1 Minio | 1 Minio | 2025-07-12 | 7.5 High |
| MinIO is a High Performance Object Storage released under GNU Affero General Public License v3.0. The signature component of the authorization may be invalid, which would mean that as a client you can use any arbitrary secret to upload objects given the user already has prior WRITE permissions on the bucket. Prior knowledge of access-key, and bucket name this user might have access to - and an access-key with a WRITE permissions is necessary. However with relevant information in place, uploading random objects to buckets is trivial and easy via curl. This issue is fixed in RELEASE.2025-04-03T14-56-28Z. | ||||
| CVE-2024-13172 | 1 Ivanti | 1 Endpoint Manager | 2025-07-11 | 7.8 High |
| Improper signature verification in Ivanti EPM before the 2024 January-2025 Security Update and 2022 SU6 January-2025 Security Update allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to achieve remote code execution. Local user interaction is required. | ||||
| CVE-2025-33069 | 1 Microsoft | 2 Windows 11 24h2, Windows Server 2025 | 2025-07-11 | 5.1 Medium |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in App Control for Business (WDAC) allows an unauthorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally. | ||||
| CVE-2025-2763 | 1 Carlinkit | 2 Autokit, Cpc200-ccpa | 2025-07-11 | N/A |
| CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of update packages on USB drives. The issue results from the lack of proper verification of a cryptographic signature. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-24356. | ||||
| CVE-2025-2764 | 1 Carlinkit | 2 Autokit, Cpc200-ccpa | 2025-07-11 | N/A |
| CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA update.cgi Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of CarlinKit CPC200-CCPA devices. Although authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability, the existing authentication mechanism can be bypassed. The specific flaw exists within the handling of update packages provided to update.cgi. The issue results from the lack of proper verification of a cryptographic signature. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-24355. | ||||
| CVE-2024-49365 | 2025-07-03 | N/A | ||
| tiny-secp256k1 is a tiny secp256k1 native/JS wrapper. Prior to version 1.1.7, a malicious JSON-stringifyable message can be made passing on verify(), when global Buffer is the buffer package. This affects only environments where require('buffer') is the NPM buffer package. Buffer.isBuffer check can be bypassed, resulting in strange objects being accepted as a message, and those messages could trick verify() into returning false-positive true values. This issue has been patched in version 1.1.7. | ||||
| CVE-2025-24043 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Windbg | 2025-07-03 | 7.5 High |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in .NET allows an authorized attacker to execute code over a network. | ||||
| CVE-2023-20266 | 1 Cisco | 3 Emergency Responder, Unified Communications Manager, Unity Connection | 2025-07-01 | 6.5 Medium |
| A vulnerability in Cisco Emergency Responder, Cisco Unified Communications Manager (Unified CM), Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition (Unified CM SME), and Cisco Unity Connection could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to elevate privileges to root on an affected device. This vulnerability exists because the application does not properly restrict the files that are being used for upgrades. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by providing a crafted upgrade file. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to elevate privileges to root. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid platform administrator credentials on an affected device. | ||||
| CVE-2024-36347 | 2025-07-01 | 6.4 Medium | ||
| Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious microcode, potentially resulting in loss of integrity of x86 instruction execution, loss of confidentiality and integrity of data in x86 CPU privileged context and compromise of SMM execution environment. | ||||
| CVE-2025-47934 | 1 Openpgpjs | 1 Openpgpjs | 2025-06-24 | 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-2025-52556 | 2025-06-23 | N/A | ||
| rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-42459 | 3 Elliptic Project, Indutny, Redhat | 5 Elliptic, Elliptic, Acm and 2 more | 2025-06-20 | 5.3 Medium |
| In the Elliptic package 6.5.6 for Node.js, EDDSA signature malleability occurs because there is a missing signature length check, and thus zero-valued bytes can be removed or appended. | ||||
| CVE-2024-48948 | 2 Indutny, Nodejs | 2 Elliptic, Elliptic | 2025-06-20 | 4.8 Medium |
| 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. | ||||
| CVE-2023-25718 | 1 Connectwise | 1 Control | 2025-06-19 | 9.8 Critical |
| In ConnectWise Control through 22.9.10032 (formerly known as ScreenConnect), after an executable file is signed, additional instructions can be added without invalidating the signature, such as instructions that result in offering the end user a (different) attacker-controlled executable file. It is plausible that the end user may allow the download and execution of this file to proceed. There are ConnectWise Control configuration options that add mitigations. | ||||