Export limit exceeded: 419555 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (1022 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2002-1706 | 1 Cisco | 3 Ios, Ubr7100, Ubr7200 | 2026-04-16 | 7.5 High |
| Cisco IOS software 11.3 through 12.2 running on Cisco uBR7200 and uBR7100 series Universal Broadband Routers allows remote attackers to modify Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) settings via a DOCSIS file without a Message Integrity Check (MIC) signature, which is approved by the router. | ||||
| CVE-2002-1796 | 1 Hp | 5 Chaivm Ezloader, Laserjet 4100, Laserjet 4500 and 2 more | 2026-04-16 | 7.8 High |
| ChaiVM EZloader for HP color LaserJet 4500 and 4550 and HP LaserJet 4100 and 8150 does not properly verify JAR signatures for new services, which allows local users to load unauthorized Chai services. | ||||
| 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-2025-32060 | 1 Bosch | 1 Infotainment System Ecu | 2026-04-15 | 6.7 Medium |
| The system suffers from the absence of a kernel module signature verification. If an attacker can execute commands on behalf of root user (due to additional vulnerabilities), then he/she is also able to load custom kernel modules to the kernel space and execute code in the kernel context. Such a flaw can lead to taking control over the entire system. First identified on Nissan Leaf ZE1 manufactured in 2020. | ||||
| CVE-2024-53267 | 1 Sigstore | 1 Sigstore-java | 2026-04-15 | 5.5 Medium |
| sigstore-java is a sigstore java client for interacting with sigstore infrastructure. sigstore-java has insufficient verification for a situation where a validly-signed but "mismatched" bundle is presented as proof of inclusion into a transparency log. This bug impacts clients using any variation of KeylessVerifier.verify(). The verifier may accept a bundle with an unrelated log entry, cryptographically verifying everything but fails to ensure the log entry applies to the artifact in question, thereby "verifying" a bundle without any proof the signing event was logged. This allows the creation of a bundle without fulcio certificate and private key combined with an unrelated but time-correct log entry to fake logging of a signing event. A malicious actor using a compromised identity may want to do this to prevent discovery via rekor's log monitors. The signer's identity will still be available to the verifier. The signature on the bundle must still be on the correct artifact for the verifier to pass. sigstore-gradle-plugin and sigstore-maven-plugin are not affected by this as they only provide signing functionality. This issue has been patched in v1.1.0 release with PR #856. All users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2024-5912 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| An improper file signature check in Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR agent may allow an attacker to bypass the Cortex XDR agent's executable blocking capabilities and run untrusted executables on the device. This issue can be leveraged to execute untrusted software without being detected or blocked. | ||||
| 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-2024-8531 | 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-2025-12007 | 1 Supermicro | 1 Mbd-x13sem-f | 2026-04-15 | 8.4 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-2025-24800 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| Hyperbridge is a hyper-scalable coprocessor for verifiable, cross-chain interoperability. A critical vulnerability was discovered in the ismp-grandpa crate, that allowed a malicious prover easily convince the verifier of the finality of arbitrary headers. This could be used to steal funds or compromise other kinds of cross-chain applications. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.0.1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-27813 | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High | ||
| MSI Center before 2.0.52.0 has Missing PE Signature Validation. | ||||
| CVE-2025-30064 | 1 Cgm | 1 Clininet | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| An insufficiently secured internal function allows session generation for arbitrary users. The decodeParam function checks the JWT but does not verify which signing algorithm was used. As a result, an attacker can use the "ex:action" parameter in the VerifyUserByThrustedService function to generate a session for any user. | ||||
| 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-2025-55278 | 1 Hcltech | 1 Devops Loop | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High |
| Improper authentication in the API authentication middleware of HCL DevOps Loop allows authentication tokens to be accepted without proper validation of their expiration and cryptographic signature. As a result, an attacker could potentially use expired or tampered tokens to gain unauthorized access to sensitive resources and perform actions with elevated privileges. | ||||
| 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-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-2024-47943 | 2026-04-15 | 9.8 Critical | ||
| The firmware upgrade function in the admin web interface of the Rittal IoT Interface & CMC III Processing Unit devices checks if the patch files are signed before executing the containing run.sh script. The signing process is kind of an HMAC with a long string as key which is hard-coded in the firmware and is freely available for download. This allows crafting malicious "signed" .patch files in order to compromise the device and execute arbitrary code. | ||||
| CVE-2025-59934 | 1 Formbricks | 1 Formbricks | 2026-04-15 | 9.4 Critical |
| Formbricks is an open source qualtrics alternative. Prior to version 4.0.1, Formbricks is missing JWT signature verification. This vulnerability stems from a token validation routine that only decodes JWTs (jwt.decode) without verifying their signatures. Both the email verification token login path and the password reset server action use the same validator, which does not check the token’s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victim’s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victim’s password. This issue has been patched in version 4.0.1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-10237 | 2026-04-15 | 7.2 High | ||
| There is a vulnerability in the BMC firmware image authentication design at Supermicro MBD-X12DPG-OA6 . An attacker can modify the firmware to bypass BMC inspection and bypass the signature verification process | ||||