| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Defender Security WordPress plugin before 6.4.1 does not verify that the client IP address it derives for its firewall and lockout decisions actually originates from a trusted source, trusting a user-supplied value by default, allowing unauthenticated attackers to spoof their IP address and evade IP-based protections such as login lockout and IP banning, impersonate an allowlisted address, and poison the Defender Security WordPress plugin before 6.4.1's activity logs. |
| Sleipnir Mobile for iPhone / iPad and Sleipnir Mobile for iPhone / iPad Black Edition provided by Fenrir Inc. are vulnerable to improper certificate verification. A man-in-the-middle attack may allow an attacker to eavesdrop on an encrypted communication. |
| An improper certificate validation vulnerability in the Support Form in Synology DiskStation Manager (DSM) before 7.3.2-86009-5 and 7.4.1-90080-1 allows man-in-the-middle attackers to read arbitrary files and write specific files during support form submission. |
| Authentication bypass by spoofing in AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) firmware could allow a malicious hypervisor to request attestation reports for VMPL 0. |
| Action Mailbox routes incoming emails to controller-like mailboxes for processing in Rails. Prior to 8.1.4.1 and 8.0.5.2, the Action Mailbox Mailgun ingress authenticates a request with an HMAC of the timestamp and token parameters concatenated without a separator, and ActionMailbox::Ingresses::Mailgun::InboundEmailsController::Authenticator#recent? rejects only timestamps more than 2 minutes in the past. Because the signature does not fix the boundary between the two values, a captured signed request can be presented with a timestamp far in the future, which the ingress then accepts indefinitely. An attacker who obtains one signed Mailgun webhook request, but not the signing key, could submit arbitrary inbound email that Action Mailbox processes as genuine, possibly leading to forged messages attributed to the sender of the attacker's choosing. Applications that receive inbound email through the Action Mailbox Mailgun ingress are affected. This issue is fixed in versions 8.1.4.1 and 8.0.5.2. |
| A improper certificate validation vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.9, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.13 may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the SSLVPN web portal and the backend destination website. |
| A authentication bypass by spoofing vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12, FortiManager 8.0.0, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12 may allow an authenticated administrator to escalate their privileges, bypass authorization controls or impersonate internal services via specially crafted requests to the GUI. |
| A improper certificate validation vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2 all versions, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2 all versions, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2 all versions, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2 all versions may allow a MITM attacker to impersonate the radius server via a rogue RADIUS server. |
| A authentication bypass by spoofing vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 8.0.1, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiAnalyzer Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12, FortiManager 8.0.0 through 8.0.1, FortiManager 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager 7.4.0 through 7.4.11, FortiManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.12, FortiManager Cloud 8.0.1, FortiManager Cloud 7.6.0 through 7.6.7, FortiManager Cloud 7.4.1 through 7.4.11, FortiManager Cloud 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 may allow an attacker to disrupt the HA state. |
| Improper authorization in Windows Network Connection Broker allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. |
| Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows OCSP designated-responder authorization bypass via missing signature verification.
The OCSP response validation in public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 does not verify that a CA-designated responder certificate was cryptographically signed by the issuing CA. Instead, it only checks that the responder certificate's issuer name matches the CA's subject name and that the certificate has the OCSPSigning extended key usage. An attacker who can intercept or control OCSP responses can create a self-signed certificate with a matching issuer name and the OCSPSigning EKU, and use it to forge OCSP responses that mark revoked certificates as valid.
This affects SSL/TLS clients using OCSP stapling, which may accept connections to servers with revoked certificates, potentially transmitting sensitive data to compromised servers. Applications using the public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 API directly are also affected, with impact depending on usage context.
This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl and program routines pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 27.0 before OTP 27.3.4.10 and OTP 28.4.2, corresponding to public_key from 1.16 before 1.17.1.2 and 1.20.3, and ssl from 11.2 before 11.2.12.7 and 11.5.4. |
| A certificate validation bypass in Node.js https.Agent lets a cached TLS session authenticated under one CA policy be reused by a later request with a stricter policy. https.Agent.prototype.getName() assigns the same Agent and session-cache key to a request that omits ca and one that explicitly supplies ca: [], because an omitted value appends nothing to the key while an empty array stringifies to an empty string. The two policies differ: omitting ca uses the default trust store, while supplying ca replaces it. Since they share a key, a TLS session authenticated under the broader default policy is handed to a new connection made under the later ca: [] policy, and TLS 1.3 session resumption carries the earlier authentication forward, so the second request reports authorized === true and transmits confidential data to a server its own CA policy would reject on a fresh connection. This vulnerability affects Node.js 26.x, 24.x, and 22.x. |
| A client certificate authentication bypass in Node.js TLS lets a client change the servername during TLS 1.2 renegotiation to reach endpoints it was not authorized for. On a server that applies different client-certificate policies per hostname, for example stricter admin-only client-cert auth on one host and ordinary client-cert auth on another, a client that authenticates for a permitted host can renegotiate the TLS 1.2 connection under a different servername and carry its existing authentication to the protected host, bypassing the stricter policy. This vulnerability affects Node.js 26.x, 24.x, and 22.x. |
| A per-host mutual-TLS authorization bypass in Node.js lets a client authorized for the default hostname reach a protected hostname it is not authorized for. When a TLS server assigns a hostname a different client-certificate CA with server.addContext(host, { ca: protectedCA }) but no server certificate in that SNI context, the per-host client CA is never installed and the handshake falls back to the default client CA. In src/crypto/crypto_tls.cc, CertCbDone installs the SNI context's CA only when setSniContext succeeds, but setSniContext returns false for a context with no server certificate, so a CA-only SNI context silently keeps the default CA. A client holding a certificate trusted by the default CA, but not the protected CA, can therefore complete mTLS to the protected hostname and read its response even with requestCert and rejectUnauthorized enabled, while a client certified by the protected CA is rejected. This vulnerability affects Node.js 26.x, 24.x, and 22.x. |
| Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_cert and public_key modules) allows a DNS nameConstraints bypass via subject CommonName fallback in TLS hostname verification.
Two flaws combine to allow a subordinate CA whose DNS nameConstraints are restricted (e.g. permitted;DNS:allowed.example.com) to issue a leaf certificate that an OTP TLS client accepts as a valid identity for an out-of-scope hostname (e.g. victim.example.com):
First, pubkey_cert:validate_names/6 in lib/public_key/src/pubkey_cert.erl only checks SAN DNS entries against nameConstraints. Per RFC 5280, a permitted DNS subtree only restricts certificates that contain a DNS-typed name. A leaf with no subjectAltName therefore trivially satisfies any permitted;DNS:... constraint regardless of its subject commonName.
Second, public_key:pkix_verify_hostname/3 in lib/public_key/src/public_key.erl falls back to the subject commonName when no subjectAltName is present, extracting id-at-commonName attributes as presented IDs and matching them against the reference hostname. The strict pkix_verify_hostname_match_fun(https) matcher does not suppress this fallback.
The result is that path validation accepts a CN-only leaf under a DNS-constrained intermediate (no SAN means the nameConstraints are not triggered), and hostname verification then accepts it via the CN fallback. The bypass is reachable from stock ssl:connect with verify_peer, a trusted CA, SNI, and the canonical strict https hostname matcher.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 19.3 before OTP 26.2.5.21, OTP 27.3.4.12, OTP 28.5.0.1, and OTP 29.0.1, corresponding to public_key from 1.4 before 1.15.1.7, 1.17.1.3, 1.20.3.1, and 1.21.1. |
| Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in Erlang OTP public_key (pubkey_ocsp module) allows forged OCSP responses signed with an expired responder certificate to be accepted as valid.
OCSP response verification in pubkey_ocsp:verify_response/5 and pubkey_ocsp:is_authorized_responder/3 in lib/public_key/src/pubkey_ocsp.erl does not check the validity period (notBefore/notAfter) of the OCSP responder certificate. An attacker who has obtained the private key of an expired CA-designated OCSP responder certificate can forge OCSP responses that Erlang/OTP accepts as valid.
This affects TLS clients using OCSP stapling via the ssl application: a malicious or compromised server can present a revoked TLS certificate together with a forged OCSP response signed by an expired responder key, and the client will accept the revoked certificate as valid. It also affects applications calling public_key:pkix_ocsp_validate/5 directly, where the impact depends on the use case — server-side client certificate validation using this API may allow authentication bypass with a revoked client certificate.
This issue affects OTP from OTP 27.0 before OTP 27.3.4.12, OTP 28.5.0.1, and OTP 29.0.1, corresponding to public_key from 1.16 before 1.17.1.3, 1.20.3.1, and 1.21.1. |
| Dell OpenManage Ansible Modules, versions 2.1.2 through 10.0.3, contains an Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in the iDRACRedfishAPI component. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information exposure and unauthorized access. |
| Dell OpenManage Ansible Modules, versions 9.2.0 through 10.0.3, contains an Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in the SessionAPI component. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information exposure and unauthorized access. |
| Dell OpenManage Ansible Modules, versions 5.0.0 through 10.0.3, contains an Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability in the iDRACConnection component. An unauthenticated attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to information exposure and unauthorized access. |
| Improper check for certificate revocation in Azure Firmware allows an authorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally. |
