Total
627 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-59718 | 1 Fortinet | 3 Fortios, Fortiproxy, Fortiswitchmanager | 2025-12-17 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| A improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiOS 7.4.0 through 7.4.8, FortiOS 7.2.0 through 7.2.11, FortiOS 7.0.0 through 7.0.17, FortiProxy 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiProxy 7.4.0 through 7.4.10, FortiProxy 7.2.0 through 7.2.14, FortiProxy 7.0.0 through 7.0.21, FortiSwitchManager 7.2.0 through 7.2.6, FortiSwitchManager 7.0.0 through 7.0.5 allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message. | |||||
| CVE-2025-68113 | 2025-12-16 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM | ||
| ALTCHA is privacy-first software for captcha and bot protection. A cryptographic semantic binding flaw in ALTCHA libraries allows challenge payload splicing, which may enable replay attacks. The HMAC signature does not unambiguously bind challenge parameters to the nonce, allowing an attacker to reinterpret a valid proof-of-work submission with a modified expiration value. This may allow previously solved challenges to be reused beyond their intended lifetime, depending on server-side replay handling and deployment assumptions. The vulnerability primarily impacts abuse-prevention mechanisms such as rate limiting and bot mitigation. It does not directly affect data confidentiality or integrity. This issue has been addressed by enforcing explicit semantic separation between challenge parameters and the nonce during HMAC computation. Users are advised to upgrade to patched versions, which include version 1.0.0 of the altcha Golang package, version 1.0.0 of the altcha Rubygem, version 1.0.0 of the altcha pip package, version 1.0.0 of the altcha Erlang package, version 1.4.1 of the altcha-lib npm package, version 1.3.1 of the altcha-org/altcha Composer package, and version 1.3.0 of the org.altcha:altcha Maven package. As a mitigation, implementations may append a delimiter to the end of the `salt` value prior to HMAC computation (for example, `<salt>?expires=<time>&`). This prevents ambiguity between parameters and the nonce and is backward-compatible with existing implementations, as the delimiter is treated as a standard URL parameter separator. | |||||
| CVE-2025-59803 | 3 Apple, Foxit, Microsoft | 4 Macos, Pdf Editor, Pdf Reader and 1 more | 2025-12-15 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Foxit PDF Editor and Reader before 2025.2.1 allow signature spoofing via triggers. An attacker can embed triggers (e.g., JavaScript) in a PDF document that execute during the signing process. When a signer reviews the document, the content appears normal. However, once the signature is applied, the triggers modify content on other pages or optional content layers without explicit warning. This can cause the signed PDF to differ from what the signer saw, undermining the trustworthiness of the digital signature. The fixed versions are 2025.2.1, 14.0.1, and 13.2.1. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54369 | 2025-12-15 | N/A | 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-2025-64786 | 3 Adobe, Apple, Microsoft | 6 Acrobat, Acrobat Dc, Acrobat Reader and 3 more | 2025-12-12 | N/A | 3.3 LOW |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30264, 20.005.30793, 25.001.20982, 24.001.30273, 20.005.30803 and earlier are affected by an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to gain limited unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction. | |||||
| CVE-2025-64787 | 3 Adobe, Apple, Microsoft | 6 Acrobat, Acrobat Dc, Acrobat Reader and 3 more | 2025-12-12 | N/A | 3.3 LOW |
| Acrobat Reader versions 24.001.30264, 20.005.30793, 25.001.20982, 24.001.30273, 20.005.30803 and earlier are affected by an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass cryptographic protections and gain limited unauthorized write access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction. | |||||
| CVE-2025-13662 | 1 Ivanti | 1 Endpoint Manager | 2025-12-11 | N/A | 7.8 HIGH |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signatures in the patch management component of Ivanti Endpoint Manager prior to version 2024 SU4 SR1 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code. User Interaction is required. | |||||
| CVE-2025-66567 | 1 Onelogin | 1 Ruby-saml | 2025-12-10 | N/A | 9.1 CRITICAL |
| The ruby-saml library is for implementing the client side of a SAML authorization. ruby-saml versions up to and including 1.12.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability due to an incomplete fix for CVE-2025-25292. ReXML and Nokogiri parse XML differently, generating entirely different document structures from the same input. This allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-66568 | 1 Onelogin | 1 Ruby-saml | 2025-12-10 | N/A | 9.1 CRITICAL |
| The ruby-saml library implements the client side of an SAML authorization. Versions up to and including 1.12.4, are vulnerable to authentication bypass through the libxml2 canonicalization process used by Nokogiri for document transformation, which allows an attacker to execute a Signature Wrapping attack. When libxml2’s canonicalization is invoked on an invalid XML input, it may return an empty string rather than a canonicalized node. ruby-saml then proceeds to compute the DigestValue over this empty string, treating it as if canonicalization succeeded. This issue is fixed in version 1.18.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-59719 | 1 Fortinet | 1 Fortiweb | 2025-12-09 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb 8.0.0, FortiWeb 7.6.0 through 7.6.4, FortiWeb 7.4.0 through 7.4.9 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to bypass the FortiCloud SSO login authentication via a crafted SAML response message. | |||||
| CVE-2022-31807 | 1 Siemens | 4 Sipass Integrated Ac5102 \(acc-g2\), Sipass Integrated Ac5102 \(acc-g2\) Firmware, Sipass Integrated Acc-ap and 1 more | 2025-12-09 | N/A | 6.2 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Building X - Security Manager Edge Controller (ACC-AP) (All versions). Affected devices do not properly check the integrity of firmware updates. This could allow a local attacker to upload a maliciously modified firmware onto the device. In a second scenario, a remote attacker who is able to intercept the transfer of a valid firmware from the server to the device could modify the firmware "on the fly". | |||||
| CVE-2018-16152 | 3 Canonical, Debian, Strongswan | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Strongswan | 2025-12-03 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data in the digestAlgorithm.parameters field during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Consequently, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication. This is a variant of CVE-2006-4790 and CVE-2014-1568. | |||||
| CVE-2018-16151 | 3 Canonical, Debian, Strongswan | 3 Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Strongswan | 2025-12-03 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In verify_emsa_pkcs1_signature() in gmp_rsa_public_key.c in the gmp plugin in strongSwan 4.x and 5.x before 5.7.0, the RSA implementation based on GMP does not reject excess data after the encoded algorithm OID during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Similar to the flaw in the same version of strongSwan regarding digestAlgorithm.parameters, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used, which could lead to impersonation when only an RSA signature is used for IKEv2 authentication. | |||||
| CVE-2022-39366 | 1 Datahub | 1 Datahub | 2025-12-03 | N/A | 9.9 CRITICAL |
| DataHub is an open-source metadata platform. Prior to version 0.8.45, the `StatelessTokenService` of the DataHub metadata service (GMS) does not verify the signature of JWT tokens. This allows an attacker to connect to DataHub instances as any user if Metadata Service authentication is enabled. This vulnerability occurs because the `StatelessTokenService` of the Metadata service uses the `parse` method of `io.jsonwebtoken.JwtParser`, which does not perform a verification of the cryptographic token signature. This means that JWTs are accepted regardless of the used algorithm. This issue may lead to an authentication bypass. Version 0.8.45 contains a patch for the issue. There are no known workarounds. | |||||
| CVE-2024-23680 | 1 Amazon | 1 Aws Encryption Sdk | 2025-11-29 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| AWS Encryption SDK for Java versions 2.0.0 to 2.2.0 and less than 1.9.0 incorrectly validates some invalid ECDSA signatures. | |||||
| CVE-2025-58356 | 2025-11-28 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Constellation is the first Confidential Kubernetes. The Constellation CVM image uses LUKS2-encrypted volumes for persistent storage. When opening an encrypted storage device, the CVM uses the libcryptsetup function crypt_activate_by_passhrase. If the VM is successful in opening the partition with the disk encryption key, it treats the volume as confidential. However, due to the unsafe handling of null keyslot algorithms in the cryptsetup 2.8.1, it is possible that the opened volume is not encrypted at all. Cryptsetup prior to version 2.8.1 does not report an error when processing LUKS2-formatted disks that use the cipher_null-ecb algorithm in the keyslot encryption field. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.24.0. | |||||
| CVE-2024-48949 | 1 Indutny | 1 Elliptic | 2025-11-25 | N/A | 9.1 CRITICAL |
| The verify function in lib/elliptic/eddsa/index.js in the Elliptic package before 6.5.6 for Node.js omits "sig.S().gte(sig.eddsa.curve.n) || sig.S().isNeg()" validation. | |||||
| CVE-2024-48948 | 1 Indutny | 1 Elliptic | 2025-11-25 | N/A | 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-2025-59288 | 1 Microsoft | 1 Playwright | 2025-11-21 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Github: Playwright allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over an adjacent network. | |||||
| CVE-2025-64456 | 1 Jetbrains | 1 Resharper | 2025-11-20 | N/A | 8.4 HIGH |
| In JetBrains ReSharper before 2025.2.4 missing signature verification in DPA Collector allows local privilege escalation | |||||