| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Lock Warp switch is a feature of Zero Trust platform which, when
enabled, prevents users of enrolled devices from disabling WARP client.
Due to insufficient policy verification by WARP iOS client, this
feature could be bypassed by using the "Disable WARP" quick action.
|
| node SAML is a SAML 2.0 library based on the SAML implementation of passport-saml. A remote attacker may be able to bypass SAML authentication on a website using passport-saml. A successful attack requires that the attacker is in possession of an arbitrary IDP signed XML element. Depending on the IDP used, fully unauthenticated attacks (e.g without access to a valid user) might also be feasible if generation of a signed message can be triggered. Users should upgrade to node-saml version 4.0.0-beta5 or newer. Disabling SAML authentication may be done as a workaround. |
| Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code does not properly check `DigestInfo` for a proper ASN.1 structure. This can lead to successful verification with signatures that contain invalid structures but a valid digest. The issue has been addressed in `node-forge` version 1.3.0. There are currently no known workarounds. |
| Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.3.0, RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification code does not check for tailing garbage bytes after decoding a `DigestInfo` ASN.1 structure. This can allow padding bytes to be removed and garbage data added to forge a signature when a low public exponent is being used. The issue has been addressed in `node-forge` version 1.3.0. There are currently no known workarounds. |
| The vulnerability is that IDToken verifier does not verify if token is properly signed. Signature verification makes sure that the token's payload comes from valid provider, not from someone else. An attacker can provide a compromised token with custom payload. The token will pass the validation on the client side. We recommend upgrading to version 1.33.3 or above |
| Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV
(RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated
Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages.
Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD
to the victim's application using these ciphers.
AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD
modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated
but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte
tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only
if the tag is verified succesfully.
In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is
computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data.
If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without
invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received
ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its
all-zeros value.
When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty
ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not
know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's
necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without
resetting the key.
AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since
OpenSSL 3.2.
No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support
either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must
implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the
ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives.
The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this
issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| Issue Summary: The PKCS#12 file processing fails to perform sufficient input
validation for files that use Password-Based Message Authentication Code 1
(PBMAC1) integrity mechanism allowing a certificate and private key forgery.
Impact Summary: An attacker impersonating a user can cause a service reading
PKCS#12 files to accept forged certificates and private keys with a 1 in 256
probability.
If a service accepting PKCS#12 files is using passwords for authenticating
the received files, the attacker can create unencrypted PKCS#12 files that
use PBMAC1 authentication that specifies an HMAC key of only one byte, allowing
them to craft a file that will be accepted with a 1 in 256 probability.
That would then cause the service to accept a certificate and private key
controlled by the attacker.
The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is
outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| Cloud Foundry UAA incorrectly treated XML encryption to the Service Provider (confidentiality) as a substitute for XML signatures from the Identity Provider (authenticity) in two SAML flows: the OAuth 2.0 SAML2 bearer grant (token endpoint) and browser SSO (ACS) when wantAssertionSigned is set to false. Assertions or responses that were unsigned but contained encrypted content could still be accepted. Encryption uses the SP's public key from published metadata, therefore, any party, not only a trusted IdP, can produce ciphertext UAA can decrypt; successful decryption therefore does not prove the IdP issued the message.
Affected versions:
Cloud Foundry UAA (uaa_release) 2.0.0 through 78.13.0.
Cloud Foundry CF Deployment all versions through 56.1.0. |
| Since Spring Security SAML decrypts SAML Responses as well as elements of SAML LogoutRequests and LogoutResponses without requiring a valid signature, attackers may be able to craft these SAML payloads and use the Service Provider as a decryption oracle.
Affected versions:
Spring Security 5.7.0 through 5.7.23; 5.8.0 through 5.8.25; 6.3.0 through 6.3.16; 6.4.0 through 6.4.16; 6.5.0 through 6.5.10; 7.0.0 through 7.0.5. |
| The UpdraftPlus: WP Backup & Migration Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authentication Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.26.4 via the UpdraftPlus_Remote_Communications_V2::wp_loaded function. This is due to insufficient validation of the remote communications message format, where signature verification can be bypassed and unchecked decryption return values collapse to a predictable all-zero encryption key. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge arbitrary RPC commands and run them as the connected administrator, such as uploading and activating a malicious plugin, which ultimately leads to remote code execution. |
| Fedify is a TypeScript library for building federated server apps powered by ActivityPub. Prior to versions 1.9.11, 1.10.10, 2.0.18, 2.1.14, and 2.2.3, an attacker can make use of JSON-LD features to restructure a JSON-LD document that would change how Fedify interprets it without changing its Linked Data Signature, allowing them to alter a third-party signed activity they have received. Versions 1.9.11, 1.10.10, 2.0.18, 2.1.14, and 2.2.3 fix the issue. |
| A lack of cryptographic signature verification in the validateAccessToken function of bookcars v8.3 allows attackers to bypass authentication via a forged JWT token. |
| Ghidra before 12.1 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in PKIAuthenticationModule.authenticate() that allows any user with a valid CA-signed certificate to impersonate other users by presenting their public certificate with a null signature. Attackers can escalate privileges, modify repository access controls, exfiltrate shared reverse engineering databases, and permanently compromise server integrity. |
| SAP NetWeaver Application Server ABAP and ABAP Platform allows an authenticated attacker with normal privileges to obtain a valid signed message and send modified signed XML documents to the verifier. This may result in acceptance of tampered identity information leading to unauthorized access to sensitive user data and potential disruption of normal system usage. This causes a high impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability of the application. |
| 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. |
| An authentication bypass vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software enables an unauthenticated attacker with network access to bypass authentication controls when Cloud Authentication Service (CAS) is enabled.
The risk is higher if CAS is enabled on the management interface and lower when any other login interfaces are used.
The risk of this issue is greatly reduced if you secure access to the management web interface by restricting access to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended best practice deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 .
This issue is applicable to PAN-OS software on PA-Series and VM-Series firewalls and on Panorama (virtual and M-Series).
Cloud NGFW and Prisma Access® are not impacted by this vulnerability. |
| 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. |
| SAP NetWeaver Application Server ABAP and ABAP Platform allows an authenticated attacker with normal privileges to obtain a valid signed message and send modified signed XML documents to the verifier. This may result in acceptance of tampered identity information, unauthorized access to sensitive user data and potential disruption of normal system usage. |
| OP-TEE is a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) designed as companion to a non-secure Linux kernel running on Arm; Cortex-A cores using the TrustZone technology. Prior to version 4.11.0, on many of the ECDH shared secret paths, the public key isn't verified to be a point on the correct curve. By passing approximately 30-40 crafted public keys to OP-TEE, the private key can be reconstructed by a normal world attacker. When calling TEE_DeriveKey the public key is provided with full X and Y values, but the (X, Y) point might not satisfy the `Y^2 == X^3 + aX + b mod P` math for the specific curve that is used. When those public keys aren't rejected, the attacker can select public keys such that each DeriveKey call will leak `d % r` where `d` is the private key and `r` comes from the relationship between the correct curve and the attacker selected curve. With enough leaked data the Chinese remainder theorem can be used to recover the full private key. Version 4.11.0 fixes the issue. |
| An unprotected memory-access operation in optee_os in TrustedFirmware Open Portable Trusted Execution Environment (OP-TEE) before 3.20 allows a physically proximate adversary to bypass signature verification and install malicious trusted applications via electromagnetic fault injections. |
