Export limit exceeded: 361363 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (732 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-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-2025-27498 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| aes-gcm is a pure Rust implementation of the AES-GCM. In decrypt_in_place_detached, the decrypted ciphertext (which is the correct ciphertext) is exposed even if the tag is incorrect. This is because in decrypt_inplace in asconcore.rs, tag verification causes an error to be returned with the plaintext contents still in buffer. The vulnerability is fixed in 0.4.3. | ||||
| CVE-2024-7481 | 1 Teamviewer | 2 Full Client, Host | 2026-04-15 | 8.8 High |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature during installation of a Printer driver via the TeamViewer_service.exe component of TeamViewer Remote Clients prior version 15.58.4 for Windows allows an attacker with local unprivileged access on a Windows system to elevate their privileges and install drivers. | ||||
| CVE-2024-8036 | 2026-04-15 | 5.9 Medium | ||
| ABB is aware of privately reported vulnerabilities in the product versions referenced in this CVE. An attacker could exploit these vulnerabilities by sending a specially crafted firmware or configuration to the system node, causing the node to stop, become inaccessible, or allowing the attacker to take control of the node. | ||||
| CVE-2025-34500 | 1 Shuffle Master | 1 Deck Mate 2 | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units. | ||||
| CVE-2024-11957 | 1 Kingsoft | 1 Wps Office | 2026-04-15 | 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-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-2024-8531 | 1 Schneider-electric | 1 Data Center Expert | 2026-04-15 | 7.2 High |
| CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability exists that could compromise the Data Center Expert software when an upgrade bundle is manipulated to include arbitrary bash scripts that are executed as root. | ||||
| CVE-2025-27813 | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High | ||
| MSI Center before 2.0.52.0 has Missing PE Signature Validation. | ||||
| CVE-2025-52556 | 2026-04-15 | 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-2025-54982 | 1 Zscaler | 1 Authentication Server | 2026-04-15 | 9.6 Critical |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature in Zscaler's SAML authentication mechanism on the server-side allowed an authentication abuse. | ||||
| 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-2025-47934 | 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-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-2024-49365 | 2026-04-15 | 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-2025-54419 | 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-2025-6198 | 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-2024-38807 | 2026-04-15 | 6.3 Medium | ||
| Applications that use spring-boot-loader or spring-boot-loader-classic and contain custom code that performs signature verification of nested jar files may be vulnerable to signature forgery where content that appears to have been signed by one signer has, in fact, been signed by another. | ||||