The XInput extension in X.Org X Window System (aka X11 or X) X11R4 and X.Org Server (aka xserver and xorg-server) before 1.16.3 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read or write) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted length or index value to the (1) SProcXChangeDeviceControl, (2) ProcXChangeDeviceControl, (3) ProcXChangeFeedbackControl, (4) ProcXSendExtensionEvent, (5) SProcXIAllowEvents, (6) SProcXIChangeCursor, (7) ProcXIChangeHierarchy, (8) SProcXIGetClientPointer, (9) SProcXIGrabDevice, (10) SProcXIUngrabDevice, (11) ProcXIUngrabDevice, (12) SProcXIPassiveGrabDevice, (13) ProcXIPassiveGrabDevice, (14) SProcXIPassiveUngrabDevice, (15) ProcXIPassiveUngrabDevice, (16) SProcXListDeviceProperties, (17) SProcXDeleteDeviceProperty, (18) SProcXIListProperties, (19) SProcXIDeleteProperty, (20) SProcXIGetProperty, (21) SProcXIQueryDevice, (22) SProcXIQueryPointer, (23) SProcXISelectEvents, (24) SProcXISetClientPointer, (25) SProcXISetFocus, (26) SProcXIGetFocus, or (27) SProcXIWarpPointer function.

The SProcXCMiscGetXIDList function in the XC-MISC extension in X.Org X Window System (aka X11 or X) X11R6.0 and X.Org Server (aka xserver and xorg-server) before 1.16.3 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read or write) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted length or index value.

A flaw was found in PolicyKit (aka polkit) 0.115 that allows a user with a uid greater than INT_MAX to successfully execute any systemctl command.

An issue exists in uscan in devscripts before 2.13.19, which could let a remote malicious user execute arbitrary code via a crafted tarball.

An authentication flaw was found in ceph in versions before 14.2.20. When the monitor handles CEPHX_GET_AUTH_SESSION_KEY requests, it doesn't sanitize other_keys, allowing key reuse. An attacker who can request a global_id can exploit the ability of any user to request a global_id previously associated with another user, as ceph does not force the reuse of old keys to generate new ones. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data confidentiality and integrity as well as system availability.

Django 1.11 before 1.11.29, 2.2 before 2.2.11, and 3.0 before 3.0.4 allows SQL Injection if untrusted data is used as a tolerance parameter in GIS functions and aggregates on Oracle. By passing a suitably crafted tolerance to GIS functions and aggregates on Oracle, it was possible to break escaping and inject malicious SQL.

The XML-RPC server in supervisor before 3.0.1, 3.1.x before 3.1.4, 3.2.x before 3.2.4, and 3.3.x before 3.3.3 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted XML-RPC request, related to nested supervisord namespace lookups.

Gitlab Community Edition version 10.3 is vulnerable to a path traversal issue in the GitLab CI runner component resulting in remote code execution.

SPIP before 3.2.14 and 4.x before 4.0.5 allows remote authenticated editors to execute arbitrary code.

A vulnerability was found in GnuTLS, where a cockpit (which uses gnuTLS) rejects a certificate chain with distributed trust. This issue occurs when validating a certificate chain with cockpit-certificate-ensure. This flaw allows an unauthenticated, remote client or attacker to initiate a denial of service attack.

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.

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.

GNOME Evolution through 3.28.2 is prone to OpenPGP signatures being spoofed for arbitrary messages using a specially crafted email that contains a valid signature from the entity to be impersonated as an attachment.

It was discovered that uscan, a tool to scan/watch upstream sources for new releases of software, included in devscripts (a collection of scripts to make the life of a Debian Package maintainer easier), skips OpenPGP verification if the upstream source is already downloaded from a previous run even if the verification failed back then.

golang.org/x/crypto before v0.0.0-20200220183623-bac4c82f6975 for Go allows a panic during signature verification in the golang.org/x/crypto/ssh package. A client can attack an SSH server that accepts public keys. Also, a server can attack any SSH client.

Shibboleth XMLTooling-C before 1.6.3, as used in Shibboleth Service Provider before 2.6.0 on Windows and other products, mishandles digital signatures of user attribute data, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or conduct impersonation attacks via a crafted DTD.

The mirror:// method implementation in Advanced Package Tool (APT) 1.6.x before 1.6.4 and 1.7.x before 1.7.0~alpha3 mishandles gpg signature verification for the InRelease file of a fallback mirror, aka mirrorfail.

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.

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.

browserify-sign is a package to duplicate the functionality of node's crypto public key functions, much of this is based on Fedor Indutny's work on indutny/tls.js. An upper bound check issue in `dsaVerify` function allows an attacker to construct signatures that can be successfully verified by any public key, thus leading to a signature forgery attack. All places in this project that involve DSA verification of user-input signatures will be affected by this vulnerability. This issue has been patched in version 4.2.2.

A signature-validation bypass issue was discovered in SimpleSAMLphp through 1.14.16. A SimpleSAMLphp Service Provider using SAML 1.1 will regard as valid any unsigned SAML response containing more than one signed assertion, provided that the signature of at least one of the assertions is valid. Attributes contained in all the assertions received will be merged and the entityID of the first assertion received will be used, allowing an attacker to impersonate any user of any IdP given an assertion signed by the targeted IdP.

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.

shibsp/metadata/DynamicMetadataProvider.cpp in the Dynamic MetadataProvider plugin in Shibboleth Service Provider before 2.6.1 fails to properly configure itself with the MetadataFilter plugins and does not perform critical security checks such as signature verification, enforcement of validity periods, and other checks specific to deployments, aka SSPCPP-763.

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.

RubyGems version Ruby 2.2 series: 2.2.9 and earlier, Ruby 2.3 series: 2.3.6 and earlier, Ruby 2.4 series: 2.4.3 and earlier, Ruby 2.5 series: 2.5.0 and earlier, prior to trunk revision 62422 contains a Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in package.rb that can result in a mis-signed gem could be installed, as the tarball would contain multiple gem signatures.. This vulnerability appears to have been fixed in 2.7.6.

GRUB2 fails to validate kernel signature when booted directly without shim, allowing secure boot to be bypassed. This only affects systems where the kernel signing certificate has been imported directly into the secure boot database and the GRUB image is booted directly without the use of shim. This issue affects GRUB2 version 2.04 and prior versions.

An issue has been found in PowerDNS Recursor 4.1.0 through 4.3.0 where records in the answer section of a NXDOMAIN response lacking an SOA were not properly validated in SyncRes::processAnswer, allowing an attacker to bypass DNSSEC validation.

Shibboleth XMLTooling-C before 1.6.4, as used in Shibboleth Service Provider before 2.6.1.4 on Windows and other products, mishandles digital signatures of user data, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or conduct impersonation attacks via crafted XML data. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2018-0486.

VMware Tools contains a SAML token signature bypass vulnerability. A malicious actor that has been granted Guest Operation Privileges https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-vSphere/8.0/vsphere-security/GUID-6A952214-0E5E-4CCF-9D2A-90948FF643EC.html  in a target virtual machine may be able to elevate their privileges if that target virtual machine has been assigned a more privileged Guest Alias https://vdc-download.vmware.com/vmwb-repository/dcr-public/d1902b0e-d479-46bf-8ac9-cee0e31e8ec0/07ce8dbd-db48-4261-9b8f-c6d3ad8ba472/vim.vm.guest.AliasManager.html .

It was found that apt-key in apt, all versions, do not correctly validate gpg keys with the master keyring, leading to a potential man-in-the-middle attack.

The DynamicMetadataProvider class in saml/saml2/metadata/impl/DynamicMetadataProvider.cpp in OpenSAML-C in OpenSAML before 2.6.1 fails to properly configure itself with the MetadataFilter plugins and does not perform critical security checks such as signature verification, enforcement of validity periods, and other checks specific to deployments, aka CPPOST-105.

A flaw was found in the Ansible Engine, in ansible-engine 2.8.x before 2.8.15 and ansible-engine 2.9.x before 2.9.13, when installing packages using the dnf module. GPG signatures are ignored during installation even when disable_gpg_check is set to False, which is the default behavior. This flaw leads to malicious packages being installed on the system and arbitrary code executed via package installation scripts. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to integrity and system availability.

kernel/module.c in the Linux kernel before 5.12.14 mishandles Signature Verification, aka CID-0c18f29aae7c. Without CONFIG_MODULE_SIG, verification that a kernel module is signed, for loading via init_module, does not occur for a module.sig_enforce=1 command-line argument.

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.

Python-apt doesn't check if hashes are signed in `Version.fetch_binary()` and `Version.fetch_source()` of apt/package.py or in `_fetch_archives()` of apt/cache.py in version 1.9.3ubuntu2 and earlier. This allows downloads from unsigned repositories which shouldn't be allowed and has been fixed in verisions 1.9.5, 1.9.0ubuntu1.2, 1.6.5ubuntu0.1, 1.1.0~beta1ubuntu0.16.04.7, 0.9.3.5ubuntu3+esm2, and 0.8.3ubuntu7.5.

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.

A message-forgery issue was discovered in crypto/openpgp/clearsign/clearsign.go in supplementary Go cryptography libraries 2019-03-25. According to the OpenPGP Message Format specification in RFC 4880 chapter 7, a cleartext signed message can contain one or more optional "Hash" Armor Headers. The "Hash" Armor Header specifies the message digest algorithm(s) used for the signature. However, the Go clearsign package ignores the value of this header, which allows an attacker to spoof it. Consequently, an attacker can lead a victim to believe the signature was generated using a different message digest algorithm than what was actually used. Moreover, since the library skips Armor Header parsing in general, an attacker can not only embed arbitrary Armor Headers, but also prepend arbitrary text to cleartext messages without invalidating the signatures.

Lasso all versions prior to 2.7.0 has improper verification of a cryptographic signature.

phpseclib before 2.0.31 and 3.x before 3.0.7 mishandles RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification.

Dendrite is a Matrix homeserver written in Go. In affected versions events retrieved from a remote homeserver using the `/get_missing_events` path did not have their signatures verified correctly. This could potentially allow a remote homeserver to provide invalid/modified events to Dendrite via this endpoint. Note that this does not apply to events retrieved through other endpoints (e.g. `/event`, `/state`) as they have been correctly verified. Homeservers that have federation disabled are not vulnerable. The problem has been fixed in Dendrite 0.9.8. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue.

HTTPRedirect.php in the saml2 library in SimpleSAMLphp before 1.15.4 has an incorrect check of return values in the signature validation utilities, allowing an attacker to get invalid signatures accepted as valid by forcing an error during validation. This occurs because of a dependency on PHP functionality that interprets a -1 error code as a true boolean value.

SOGo 2.x before 2.4.1 and 3.x through 5.x before 5.1.1 does not validate the signatures of any SAML assertions it receives. Any actor with network access to the deployment could impersonate users when SAML is the authentication method. (Only versions after 2.0.5a are affected.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spring Security versions 5.2.x prior to 5.2.4 and 5.3.x prior to 5.3.2 contain a signature wrapping vulnerability during SAML response validation. When using the spring-security-saml2-service-provider component, a malicious user can carefully modify an otherwise valid SAML response and append an arbitrary assertion that Spring Security will accept as valid.

Inspur NF5266M5 through 3.21.2 and other server M5 devices allow remote code execution via administrator privileges. The Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) program of INSPUR server is weak in checking the firmware and lacks the signature verification mechanism, the attacker who obtains the administrator's rights can control the BMC by inserting malicious code into the firmware program and bypassing the current verification mechanism to upgrade the BMC.

AVEVA System Platform versions 2017 through 2020 R2 P01 does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.

An issue was discovered in Hitachi ID Bravura Security Fabric 11.0.0 through 11.1.3, 12.0.0 through 12.0.2, and 12.1.0. When using federated identity management (authenticating via SAML through a third-party identity provider), an attacker can inject additional data into a signed SAML response being transmitted to the service provider (ID Bravura Security Fabric). The application successfully validates the signed values but uses the unsigned malicious values. An attacker with lower-privilege access to the application can inject the username of a high-privilege user to impersonate that user.