Total
426 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-29108 | 1 Esri | 1 Portal For Arcgis | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 MEDIUM | 8.8 HIGH |
| There is an privilege escalation vulnerability in organization-specific logins in Esri Portal for ArcGIS versions 10.9 and below that may allow a remote, authenticated attacker who is able to intercept and modify a SAML assertion to impersonate another account (XML Signature Wrapping Attack). In addition patching, Esri also strongly recommends as best practice for SAML assertions to be signed and encrypted. | |||||
| CVE-2021-28091 | 3 Debian, Entrouvert, Fedoraproject | 3 Debian Linux, Lasso, Fedora | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| Lasso all versions prior to 2.7.0 has improper verification of a cryptographic signature. | |||||
| CVE-2021-26100 | 1 Fortinet | 1 Fortimail | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| A missing cryptographic step in the Identity-Based Encryption service of FortiMail before 7.0.0 may allow an unauthenticated attacker who intercepts the encrypted messages to manipulate them in such a way that makes the tampering and the recovery of the plaintexts possible. | |||||
| CVE-2021-24020 | 1 Fortinet | 1 Fortimail | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| A missing cryptographic step in the implementation of the hash digest algorithm in FortiMail 6.4.0 through 6.4.4, and 6.2.0 through 6.2.7 may allow an unauthenticated attacker to tamper with signed URLs by appending further data which allows bypass of signature verification. | |||||
| CVE-2021-23993 | 1 Mozilla | 1 Thunderbird | 2024-11-21 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| An attacker may perform a DoS attack to prevent a user from sending encrypted email to a correspondent. If an attacker creates a crafted OpenPGP key with a subkey that has an invalid self signature, and the Thunderbird user imports the crafted key, then Thunderbird may try to use the invalid subkey, but the RNP library rejects it from being used, causing encryption to fail. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 78.9.1. | |||||
| CVE-2021-23992 | 1 Mozilla | 1 Thunderbird | 2024-11-21 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| Thunderbird did not check if the user ID associated with an OpenPGP key has a valid self signature. An attacker may create a crafted version of an OpenPGP key, by either replacing the original user ID, or by adding another user ID. If Thunderbird imports and accepts the crafted key, the Thunderbird user may falsely conclude that the false user ID belongs to the correspondent. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 78.9.1. | |||||
| CVE-2021-22735 | 1 Schneider-electric | 4 Homelynk, Homelynk Firmware, Spacelynk and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 MEDIUM | 7.2 HIGH |
| Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability exists inhomeLYnk (Wiser For KNX) and spaceLYnk V2.60 and prior which could allow remote code execution when unauthorized code is copied to the device. | |||||
| CVE-2021-22734 | 1 Schneider-electric | 4 Homelynk, Homelynk Firmware, Spacelynk and 1 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 MEDIUM | 7.2 HIGH |
| Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability exists in homeLYnk (Wiser For KNX) and spaceLYnk V2.60 and prior which could cause remote code execution when an attacker loads unauthorized code. | |||||
| CVE-2021-22708 | 1 Schneider-electric | 12 Evlink City Evc1s22p4, Evlink City Evc1s22p4 Firmware, Evlink City Evc1s7p4 and 9 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 MEDIUM | 7.2 HIGH |
| A CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability exists in EVlink City (EVC1S22P4 / EVC1S7P4 all versions prior to R8 V3.4.0.1), EVlink Parking (EVW2 / EVF2 / EV.2 all versions prior to R8 V3.4.0.1), and EVlink Smart Wallbox (EVB1A all versions prior to R8 V3.4.0.1 ) that could allow an attacker to craft a malicious firmware package and bypass the signature verification mechanism. | |||||
| CVE-2021-22573 | 1 Google | 1 Oauth Client Library For Java | 2024-11-21 | 3.5 LOW | 8.7 HIGH |
| 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 | |||||
| CVE-2021-22160 | 1 Apache | 1 Pulsar | 2024-11-21 | 7.5 HIGH | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| If Apache Pulsar is configured to authenticate clients using tokens based on JSON Web Tokens (JWT), the signature of the token is not validated if the algorithm of the presented token is set to "none". This allows an attacker to connect to Pulsar instances as any user (incl. admins). | |||||
| CVE-2021-21405 | 1 Filecoin | 1 Lotus | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| Lotus is an Implementation of the Filecoin protocol written in Go. BLS signature validation in lotus uses blst library method VerifyCompressed. This method accepts signatures in 2 forms: "serialized", and "compressed", meaning that BLS signatures can be provided as either of 2 unique byte arrays. Lotus block validation functions perform a uniqueness check on provided blocks. Two blocks are considered distinct if the CIDs of their blockheader do not match. The CID method for blockheader includes the BlockSig of the block. The result of these issues is that it would be possible to punish miners for valid blocks, as there are two different valid block CIDs available for each block, even though this must be unique. By switching from the go based `blst` bindings over to the bindings in `filecoin-ffi`, the code paths now ensure that all signatures are compressed by size and the way they are deserialized. This happened in https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/pull/5393. | |||||
| CVE-2021-21239 | 2 Debian, Pysaml2 Project | 2 Debian Linux, Pysaml2 | 2024-11-21 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| PySAML2 is a pure python implementation of SAML Version 2 Standard. PySAML2 before 6.5.0 has an improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability. Users of pysaml2 that use the default CryptoBackendXmlSec1 backend and need to verify signed SAML documents are impacted. PySAML2 does not ensure that a signed SAML document is correctly signed. The default CryptoBackendXmlSec1 backend is using the xmlsec1 binary to verify the signature of signed SAML documents, but by default xmlsec1 accepts any type of key found within the given document. xmlsec1 needs to be configured explicitly to only use only _x509 certificates_ for the verification process of the SAML document signature. This is fixed in PySAML2 6.5.0. | |||||
| CVE-2021-21238 | 1 Pysaml2 Project | 1 Pysaml2 | 2024-11-21 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| PySAML2 is a pure python implementation of SAML Version 2 Standard. PySAML2 before 6.5.0 has an improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability. All users of pysaml2 that need to validate signed SAML documents are impacted. The vulnerability is a variant of XML Signature wrapping because it did not validate the SAML document against an XML schema. This allowed invalid XML documents to be processed and such a document can trick pysaml2 with a wrapped signature. This is fixed in PySAML2 6.5.0. | |||||
| CVE-2021-20487 | 1 Ibm | 18 8335-gth, 8335-gtx, 9008-22l and 15 more | 2024-11-21 | 6.5 MEDIUM | 9.1 CRITICAL |
| IBM Power9 Self Boot Engine(SBE) could allow a privileged user to inject malicious code and compromise the integrity of the host firmware bypassing the host firmware signature verification process. | |||||
| CVE-2021-20319 | 1 Redhat | 1 Coreos-installer | 2024-11-21 | 6.8 MEDIUM | 7.8 HIGH |
| An improper signature verification vulnerability was found in coreos-installer. A specially crafted gzip installation image can bypass the image signature verification and as a consequence can lead to the installation of unsigned content. An attacker able to modify the original installation image can write arbitrary data, and achieve full access to the node being installed. | |||||
| CVE-2021-20156 | 1 Trendnet | 2 Tew-827dru, Tew-827dru Firmware | 2024-11-21 | 4.0 MEDIUM | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| Trendnet AC2600 TEW-827DRU version 2.08B01 contains an improper access control configuration that could allow for a malicious firmware update. It is possible to manually install firmware that may be malicious in nature as there does not appear to be any signature validation done to determine if it is from a known and trusted source. This includes firmware updates that are done via the automated "check for updates" in the admin interface. If an attacker is able to masquerade as the update server, the device will not verify that the firmware updates downloaded are legitimate. | |||||
| CVE-2021-1849 | 1 Apple | 5 Ipados, Iphone Os, Macos and 2 more | 2024-11-21 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| An issue in code signature validation was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Big Sur 11.3, iOS 14.5 and iPadOS 14.5, watchOS 7.4, tvOS 14.5. A malicious application may be able to bypass Privacy preferences. | |||||
| CVE-2021-1461 | 2024-11-21 | N/A | 4.9 MEDIUM | ||
| A vulnerability in the Image Signature Verification feature of Cisco SD-WAN Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with Administrator-level credentials to install a malicious software patch on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper verification of digital signatures for patch images. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by crafting an unsigned software patch to bypass signature checks and loading it on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to boot a malicious software patch image.Cisco has released software updates that address the vulnerability described in this advisory. There are no workarounds that address this vulnerability. | |||||
| CVE-2021-1453 | 1 Cisco | 1 Ios Xe | 2024-11-21 | 7.2 HIGH | 6.8 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability in the software image verification functionality of Cisco IOS XE Software for the Cisco Catalyst 9000 Family of switches could allow an unauthenticated, physical attacker to execute unsigned code at system boot time. The vulnerability is due to an improper check in the code function that manages the verification of the digital signatures of system image files during the initial boot process. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by loading unsigned software on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to boot a malicious software image or execute unsigned code and bypass the image verification check part of the secure boot process of an affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker would need to have unauthenticated physical access to the device or obtain privileged access to the root shell on the device. | |||||