The json-jwt gem before 1.11.0 for Ruby lacks an element count during the splitting of a JWE string.

MITRE is populating this ID because it was assigned prior to Lenovo becoming a CNA. A vulnerability was reported (fixed and publicly disclosed in 2015) in Lenovo System Update version 5.07.0008 and prior that could allow the signature check of an update to be bypassed.

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.

A flaw during verification of certain S/MIME signatures causes emails to be shown in Thunderbird as having a valid digital signature, even if the shown message contents aren't covered by the signature. The flaw allows an attacker to reuse a valid S/MIME signature to craft an email message with arbitrary content. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 60.5.1.

In verify_signed_hash() in lib/liboswkeys/signatures.c in Openswan before 2.6.50.1, the RSA implementation does not verify the value of padding string during PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification. Consequently, a remote attacker can forge signatures when small public exponents are being used. IKEv2 signature verification is affected when RAW RSA keys are used.

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.

The signature verification routine in Enigmail before 2.0.7 interprets user ids as status/control messages and does not correctly keep track of the status of multiple signatures, which allows remote attackers to spoof arbitrary email signatures via public keys containing crafted primary user ids.

ServiceStack before 5.9.2 mishandles JWT signature verification unless an application has a custom ValidateToken function that establishes a valid minimum length for a signature.

Little Snitch versions 4.0 to 4.0.6 use the SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors() function without the kSecCSCheckAllArchitectures flag and therefore do not validate all architectures stored in a fat binary. An attacker can maliciously craft a fat binary containing multiple architectures that may cause a situation where Little Snitch treats the running process as having no code signature at all while erroneously indicating that the binary on disk does have a valid code signature. This could lead to users being confused about whether or not the code signature is valid.

A vulnerability in the Cisco node-jose open source library before 0.11.0 could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to re-sign tokens using a key that is embedded within the token. The vulnerability is due to node-jose following the JSON Web Signature (JWS) standard for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs). This standard specifies that a JSON Web Key (JWK) representing a public key can be embedded within the header of a JWS. This public key is then trusted for verification. An attacker could exploit this by forging valid JWS objects by removing the original signature, adding a new public key to the header, and then signing the object using the (attacker-owned) private key associated with the public key embedded in that JWS header.

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.

ecdsautils is a tiny collection of programs used for ECDSA (keygen, sign, verify). `ecdsa_verify_[prepare_]legacy()` does not check whether the signature values `r` and `s` are non-zero. A signature consisting only of zeroes is always considered valid, making it trivial to forge signatures. Requiring multiple signatures from different public keys does not mitigate the issue: `ecdsa_verify_list_legacy()` will accept an arbitrary number of such forged signatures. Both the `ecdsautil verify` CLI command and the libecdsautil library are affected. The issue has been fixed in ecdsautils 0.4.1. All older versions of ecdsautils (including versions before the split into a library and a CLI utility) are vulnerable.

A wrong generation of the passphrase for the encrypted block in Nextcloud Server 19.0.1 allowed an attacker to overwrite blocks in a file.

PySAML2 before 5.0.0 does not check that the signature in a SAML document is enveloped and thus signature wrapping is effective, i.e., it is affected by XML Signature Wrapping (XSW). The signature information and the node/object that is signed can be in different places and thus the signature verification will succeed, but the wrong data will be used. This specifically affects the verification of assertion that have been signed.

Union Pay up to 3.4.93.4.9, for android, contains a CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability, allows attackers to shop for free in merchants' websites and mobile apps, via a crafted authentication code (MAC) which is generated based on a secret key which is NULL.

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 is lenient in checking the digest algorithm structure. This can allow a crafted structure that steals padding bytes and uses unchecked portion of the PKCS#1 encoded message 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.

pass through 1.7.3 has a possibility of using a password for an unintended resource. For exploitation to occur, the user must do a git pull, decrypt a password, and log into a remote service with the password. If an attacker controls the central Git server or one of the other members' machines, and also controls one of the services already in the password store, they can rename one of the password files in the Git repository to something else: pass doesn't correctly verify that the content of a file matches the filename, so a user might be tricked into decrypting the wrong password and sending that to a service that the attacker controls. NOTE: for environments in which this threat model is of concern, signing commits can be a solution.

Union Pay up to 1.2.0, for web based versions contains a CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability, allows attackers to shop for free in merchants' websites and mobile apps, via a crafted authentication code (MAC) which is generated based on a secret key which is NULL.

An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. In a variant of CVE-2017-17847, signature spoofing is possible for multipart/related messages because a signed message part can be referenced with a cid: URI but not actually displayed. In other words, the entire containing message appears to be signed, but the recipient does not see any of the signed text.

A firmware update vulnerability exists in the &quot;update&quot; firmware checks functionality of reolink RLC-410W v3.0.0.136_20121102. A specially-crafted HTTP request can lead to firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.

An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. Signature spoofing is possible because the UI does not properly distinguish between an attachment signature, and a signature that applies to the entire containing message, aka TBE-01-021. This is demonstrated by an e-mail message with an attachment that is a signed e-mail message in message/rfc822 format.

An issue was discovered in DP3T-Backend-SDK before 1.1.1 for Decentralised Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing (DP3T). When it is configured to check JWT before uploading/publishing keys, it is possible to skip the signature check by providing a JWT token with alg=none.

In JetBrains ToolBox version 1.17 before 1.17.6856, the set of signature verifications omitted the jetbrains-toolbox.exe file.

The tough library (Rust/crates.io) prior to version 0.7.1 does not properly verify the threshold of cryptographic signatures. It allows an attacker to duplicate a valid signature in order to circumvent TUF requiring a minimum threshold of unique signatures before the metadata is considered valid. A fix is available in version 0.7.1. CVE-2020-6174 is assigned to the same vulnerability in the TUF reference implementation.

CodeMeter (All versions prior to 6.90 when using CmActLicense update files with CmActLicense Firm Code) has an issue in the license-file signature checking mechanism, which allows attackers to build arbitrary license files, including forging a valid license file as if it were a valid license file of an existing vendor. Only CmActLicense update files with CmActLicense Firm Code are affected.

An issue was discovered in the jsrsasign package through 8.0.18 for Node.js. It allows a malleability in ECDSA signatures by not checking overflows in the length of a sequence and '0' characters appended or prepended to an integer. The modified signatures are verified as valid. This could have a security-relevant impact if an application relied on a single canonical signature.

An issue was discovered in Aviatrix Controller through 5.1. An attacker with any signed SAML assertion from the Identity Provider can establish a connection (even if that SAML assertion has expired or is from a user who is not authorized to access Aviatrix), aka XML Signature Wrapping.

It is possible for an attacker to manipulate the timestamp of signed documents. All versions of Apache OpenOffice up to 4.1.10 are affected. Users are advised to update to version 4.1.11. See CVE-2021-25634 for the LibreOffice advisory.

In OASIS Digital Signature Services (DSS) 1.0, an attacker can control the validation outcome (i.e., trigger either a valid or invalid outcome for a valid or invalid signature) via a crafted XML signature, when the InlineXML option is used. This defeats the expectation of non-repudiation.

It is possible for an attacker to manipulate documents to appear to be signed by a trusted source. All versions of Apache OpenOffice up to 4.1.10 are affected. Users are advised to update to version 4.1.11. See CVE-2021-25635 for the LibreOffice advisory.

It is possible for an attacker to manipulate signed documents and macros to appear to come from a trusted source. All versions of Apache OpenOffice up to 4.1.10 are affected. Users are advised to update to version 4.1.11. See CVE-2021-25633 for the LibreOffice advisory.

Huawei APP HiWallet earlier than 5.0.3.100 versions do not support signature verification for APK file. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to hijack the APK and upload modified APK file. Successful exploit could lead to the APP is hijacking.

Http-signature is a "Reference implementation of Joyent's HTTP Signature Scheme". In versions <=0.9.11, http-signature signs only the header values, but not the header names. This makes http-signature vulnerable to header forgery. Thus, if an attacker can intercept a request, he can swap header names and change the meaning of the request without changing the signature.

Hyperledger Indy Node is the server portion of a distributed ledger purpose-built for decentralized identity. In Hyperledger Indy before version 1.12.4, there is lack of signature verification on a specific transaction which enables an attacker to make certain unauthorized alterations to the ledger. Updating a DID with a nym transaction will be written to the ledger if neither ROLE or VERKEY are being changed, regardless of sender. A malicious DID with no particular role can ask an update for another DID (but cannot modify its verkey or role). This is bad because 1) Any DID can write a nym transaction to the ledger (i.e., any DID can spam the ledger with nym transactions), 2) Any DID can change any other DID's alias, 3) The update transaction modifies the ledger metadata associated with a DID.

Sylabs Singularity 3.0 through 3.5 has Improper Validation of an Integrity Check Value. Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced. The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature.

If an OpenID Connect provider supports the "none" algorithm (i.e., tokens with no signature), pac4j v5.3.0 (and prior) does not refuse it without an explicit configuration on its side or for the "idtoken" response type which is not secure and violates the OpenID Core Specification. The "none" algorithm does not require any signature verification when validating the ID tokens, which allows the attacker to bypass the token validation by injecting a malformed ID token using "none" as the value of "alg" key in the header with an empty signature value.

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.

Cisco 7940/7960 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.

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.

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.

Improper Verification of a Cryptographic Signature in OpenPGP.js <=4.1.2 allows an attacker to forge signed messages by replacing its signatures with a "standalone" or "timestamp" signature.

Improper Verification of a Cryptographic Signature in OpenPGP.js <=4.1.2 allows an attacker to pass off unsigned data as signed.

An issue was discovered in the libp2p-core crate before 0.8.1 for Rust. Attackers can spoof ed25519 signatures.

The "Apache NetBeans" autoupdate system does not fully validate code signatures. An attacker could modify the downloaded nbm and include additional code. "Apache NetBeans" versions up to and including 11.2 are affected by this vulnerability.

In Eclipse Californium version 2.0.0 to 2.6.4 and 3.0.0-M1 to 3.0.0-M3, the certificate based (x509 and RPK) DTLS handshakes accidentally succeeds without verifying the server side's signature on the client side, if that signature is not included in the server's ServerKeyExchange.

Grassroot Platform is an application to make it faster, cheaper and easier to persistently organize and mobilize people in low-income communities. Grassroot Platform before master deployment as of 2021-04-16 did not properly verify the signature of JSON Web Tokens when refreshing an existing JWT. This allows to forge a valid JWT. The problem has been patched in version 1.3.1 by deprecating the JWT refresh function, which was an overdue deprecation regardless (the "refresh" flow is no longer used).

A crafted S/MIME message consisting of an inner encryption layer and an outer SignedData layer was shown as having a valid digital signature, although the signer might have had no access to the contents of the encrypted message, and might have stripped a different signature from the encrypted message. Previous versions had only suppressed showing a digital signature for messages with an outer multipart/signed layer. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 68.1.1.

In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier ECDSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up the signature and still have it validate, which in some cases may allow the introduction of 'invisible' data into a signed structure.

In Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the DSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up the signature and still have it validate, which in some cases may allow the introduction of 'invisible' data into a signed structure.