Total
136 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-3596 | 5 Broadcom, Freeradius, Ietf and 2 more | 12 Brocade Sannav, Fabric Operating System, Freeradius and 9 more | 2025-05-01 | 9 Critical |
| RADIUS Protocol under RFC 2865 is susceptible to forgery attacks by a local attacker who can modify any valid Response (Access-Accept, Access-Reject, or Access-Challenge) to any other response using a chosen-prefix collision attack against MD5 Response Authenticator signature. | ||||
| CVE-2023-48795 | 43 9bis, Apache, Apple and 40 more | 78 Kitty, Sshd, Sshj and 75 more | 2025-05-01 | 5.9 Medium |
| The SSH transport protocol with certain OpenSSH extensions, found in OpenSSH before 9.6 and other products, allows remote attackers to bypass integrity checks such that some packets are omitted (from the extension negotiation message), and a client and server may consequently end up with a connection for which some security features have been downgraded or disabled, aka a Terrapin attack. This occurs because the SSH Binary Packet Protocol (BPP), implemented by these extensions, mishandles the handshake phase and mishandles use of sequence numbers. For example, there is an effective attack against SSH's use of ChaCha20-Poly1305 (and CBC with Encrypt-then-MAC). The bypass occurs in chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com and (if CBC is used) the -etm@openssh.com MAC algorithms. This also affects Maverick Synergy Java SSH API before 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT, Dropbear through 2022.83, Ssh before 5.1.1 in Erlang/OTP, PuTTY before 0.80, AsyncSSH before 2.14.2, golang.org/x/crypto before 0.17.0, libssh before 0.10.6, libssh2 through 1.11.0, Thorn Tech SFTP Gateway before 3.4.6, Tera Term before 5.1, Paramiko before 3.4.0, jsch before 0.2.15, SFTPGo before 2.5.6, Netgate pfSense Plus through 23.09.1, Netgate pfSense CE through 2.7.2, HPN-SSH through 18.2.0, ProFTPD before 1.3.8b (and before 1.3.9rc2), ORYX CycloneSSH before 2.3.4, NetSarang XShell 7 before Build 0144, CrushFTP before 10.6.0, ConnectBot SSH library before 2.2.22, Apache MINA sshd through 2.11.0, sshj through 0.37.0, TinySSH through 20230101, trilead-ssh2 6401, LANCOM LCOS and LANconfig, FileZilla before 3.66.4, Nova before 11.8, PKIX-SSH before 14.4, SecureCRT before 9.4.3, Transmit5 before 5.10.4, Win32-OpenSSH before 9.5.0.0p1-Beta, WinSCP before 6.2.2, Bitvise SSH Server before 9.32, Bitvise SSH Client before 9.33, KiTTY through 0.76.1.13, the net-ssh gem 7.2.0 for Ruby, the mscdex ssh2 module before 1.15.0 for Node.js, the thrussh library before 0.35.1 for Rust, and the Russh crate before 0.40.2 for Rust. | ||||
| CVE-2023-38552 | 3 Fedoraproject, Nodejs, Redhat | 3 Fedora, Node.js, Enterprise Linux | 2025-04-30 | 7.5 High |
| When the Node.js policy feature checks the integrity of a resource against a trusted manifest, the application can intercept the operation and return a forged checksum to the node's policy implementation, thus effectively disabling the integrity check. Impacts: This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental policy mechanism in all active release lines: 18.x and, 20.x. Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the policy mechanism is an experimental feature of Node.js. | ||||
| CVE-2024-3727 | 1 Redhat | 18 Acm, Advanced Cluster Security, Ansible Automation Platform and 15 more | 2025-04-29 | 8.3 High |
| A flaw was found in the github.com/containers/image library. This flaw allows attackers to trigger unexpected authenticated registry accesses on behalf of a victim user, causing resource exhaustion, local path traversal, and other attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2022-29173 | 2 Redhat, Theupdateframework | 2 Advanced Cluster Security, Go-tuf | 2025-04-23 | 8 High |
| go-tuf is a Go implementation of The Update Framework (TUF). go-tuf does not correctly implement the client workflow for updating the metadata files for roles other than the root role. Specifically, checks for rollback attacks are not implemented correctly meaning an attacker can cause clients to install software that is older than the software which the client previously knew to be available, and may include software with known vulnerabilities. In more detail, the client code of go-tuf has several issues in regards to preventing rollback attacks: 1. It does not take into account the content of any previously trusted metadata, if available, before proceeding with updating roles other than the root role (i.e., steps 5.4.3.1 and 5.5.5 of the detailed client workflow). This means that any form of version verification done on the newly-downloaded metadata is made using the default value of zero, which always passes. 2. For both timestamp and snapshot roles, go-tuf saves these metadata files as trusted before verifying if the version of the metafiles they refer to is correct (i.e., steps 5.5.4 and 5.6.4 of the detailed client workflow). A fix is available in version 0.3.0 or newer. No workarounds are known for this issue apart from upgrading. | ||||
| CVE-2022-35961 | 1 Openzeppelin | 2 Contracts, Contracts Upgradeable | 2025-04-23 | 7.9 High |
| OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The functions `ECDSA.recover` and `ECDSA.tryRecover` are vulnerable to a kind of signature malleability due to accepting EIP-2098 compact signatures in addition to the traditional 65 byte signature format. This is only an issue for the functions that take a single `bytes` argument, and not the functions that take `r, v, s` or `r, vs` as separate arguments. The potentially affected contracts are those that implement signature reuse or replay protection by marking the signature itself as used rather than the signed message or a nonce included in it. A user may take a signature that has already been submitted, submit it again in a different form, and bypass this protection. The issue has been patched in 4.7.3. | ||||
| CVE-2023-2975 | 3 Netapp, Openssl, Redhat | 4 Management Services For Element Software And Netapp Hci, Ontap Select Deploy Administration Utility, Openssl and 1 more | 2025-04-23 | 5.3 Medium |
| Issue summary: The AES-SIV cipher implementation contains a bug that causes it to ignore empty associated data entries which are unauthenticated as a consequence. Impact summary: Applications that use the AES-SIV algorithm and want to authenticate empty data entries as associated data can be misled by removing, adding or reordering such empty entries as these are ignored by the OpenSSL implementation. We are currently unaware of any such applications. The AES-SIV algorithm allows for authentication of multiple associated data entries along with the encryption. To authenticate empty data the application has to call EVP_EncryptUpdate() (or EVP_CipherUpdate()) with NULL pointer as the output buffer and 0 as the input buffer length. The AES-SIV implementation in OpenSSL just returns success for such a call instead of performing the associated data authentication operation. The empty data thus will not be authenticated. As this issue does not affect non-empty associated data authentication and we expect it to be rare for an application to use empty associated data entries this is qualified as Low severity issue. | ||||
| CVE-2024-56169 | 1 Nicmx | 1 Fort Validator | 2025-04-22 | 5.3 Medium |
| A validation integrity issue was discovered in Fort through 1.6.4 before 2.0.0. RPKI Relying Parties (such as Fort) are supposed to maintain a backup cache of the remote RPKI data. This can be employed as a fallback in case a new fetch fails or yields incorrect files. However, the product currently uses its cache merely as a bandwidth saving tool (because fetching is performed through deltas). If a fetch fails midway or yields incorrect files, there is no viable fallback. This leads to incomplete route origin validation data. | ||||
| CVE-2017-9498 | 2 Comcast, Motorola | 4 Xfinity Xr11-20, Xfinity Xr11-20 Firmware, Mx011anm and 1 more | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| The Comcast firmware on Motorola MX011ANM (firmware version MX011AN_2.9p6s1_PROD_sey) and Xfinity XR11-20 Voice Remote devices allows local users to upload arbitrary firmware images to an XR11 by leveraging root access. In other words, there is no protection mechanism involving digital signatures for the firmware. | ||||
| CVE-2017-3760 | 1 Lenovo | 1 Service Framework | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| The Lenovo Service Framework Android application uses a set of nonsecure credentials when performing integrity verification of downloaded applications and/or data. This exposes the application to man-in-the-middle attacks leading to possible remote code execution. | ||||
| CVE-2017-12973 | 1 Connect2id | 1 Nimbus Jose\+jwt | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Nimbus JOSE+JWT before 4.39 proceeds improperly after detection of an invalid HMAC in authenticated AES-CBC decryption, which allows attackers to conduct a padding oracle attack. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15994 | 1 Samba | 1 Rsync | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| rsync 3.1.3-development before 2017-10-24 mishandles archaic checksums, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. NOTE: the rsync development branch has significant use beyond the rsync developers, e.g., the code has been copied for use in various GitHub projects. | ||||
| CVE-2017-4961 | 1 Cloud Foundry | 1 Bosh | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| An issue was discovered in Cloud Foundry Foundation BOSH Release 261.x versions prior to 261.3 and all 260.x versions. In certain cases an authenticated Director user can provide a malicious checksum that could allow them to escalate their privileges on the Director VM, aka "BOSH Director Shell Injection Vulnerabilities." | ||||
| CVE-2017-9606 | 1 Infotecs | 2 Vipnet Client, Vipnet Coordinator | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Infotecs ViPNet Client and Coordinator before 4.3.2-42442 allow local users to gain privileges by placing a Trojan horse ViPNet update file in the update folder. The attack succeeds because of incorrect folder permissions in conjunction with a lack of integrity and authenticity checks. | ||||
| CVE-2025-3479 | 2025-04-17 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The Forminator Forms – Contact Form, Payment Form & Custom Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Order Replay in all versions up to, and including, 1.42.0 via the 'handle_stripe_single' function due to insufficient validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reuse a single Stripe PaymentIntent for multiple transactions. Only the first transaction is processed via Stripe, but the plugin sends a successful email message for each transaction, which may trick an administrator into fulfilling each order. | ||||
| CVE-2022-46402 | 1 Microchip | 18 Bm70, Bm70 Firmware, Bm71 and 15 more | 2025-04-17 | 6.5 Medium |
| The Microchip RN4870 module firmware 1.43 (and the Microchip PIC LightBlue Explorer Demo 4.2 DT100112) accepts PairCon_rmSend with incorrect values. | ||||
| CVE-2025-3247 | 2025-04-16 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The Contact Form 7 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Order Replay in all versions up to, and including, 6.0.5 via the 'wpcf7_stripe_skip_spam_check' function due to insufficient validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reuse a single Stripe PaymentIntent for multiple transactions. Only the first transaction is processed via Stripe, but the plugin sends a successful email message for each transaction, which may trick an administrator into fulfilling each order. | ||||
| CVE-2008-3323 | 1 Redhat | 1 Cygwin | 2025-04-09 | N/A |
| setup.exe before 2.573.2.3 in Cygwin does not properly verify the authenticity of packages, which allows remote Cygwin mirror servers or man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via a package list containing the MD5 checksum of a Trojan horse package. | ||||
| CVE-2025-24148 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2025-04-04 | 9.8 Critical |
| This issue was addressed with improved handling of executable types. This issue is fixed in macOS Ventura 13.7.5, macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5. A malicious JAR file may bypass Gatekeeper checks. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41909 | 2 Apache, Redhat | 2 Mina Sshd, Jboss Enterprise Application Platform | 2025-03-27 | 5.9 Medium |
| Like many other SSH implementations, Apache MINA SSHD suffered from the issue that is more widely known as CVE-2023-48795. An attacker that can intercept traffic between client and server could drop certain packets from the stream, potentially causing client and server to consequently end up with a connection for which some security features have been downgraded or disabled, aka a Terrapin attack The mitigations to prevent this type of attack were implemented in Apache MINA SSHD 2.12.0, both client and server side. Users are recommended to upgrade to at least this version. Note that both the client and the server implementation must have mitigations applied against this issue, otherwise the connection may still be affected. | ||||