| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. 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 PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification routine in all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel may not check padding. |
| 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 incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for yaxim and Bruno (0.8.6 - 0.8.8; Android). |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for ChatSecure (3.2.0 - 4.0.0; only iOS) and Zom (all versions up to 1.0.11; only iOS). |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for SleekXMPP up to 1.3.1 and Slixmpp all versions up to 1.2.3, as bundled in poezio (0.8 - 0.10) and other products. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for jappix 1.0.0 to 1.1.6. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for Jitsi 2.5.5061 - 2.9.5544. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for mcabber 1.0.0 - 1.0.4. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for Movim 0.8 - 0.10. |
| An incorrect implementation of "XEP-0280: Message Carbons" in multiple XMPP clients allows a remote attacker to impersonate any user, including contacts, in the vulnerable application's display. This allows for various kinds of social engineering attacks. This CVE is for Xabber (only if manually enabled: 1.0.30, 1.0.30 VIP, beta 1.0.3 - 1.0.74; Android). |
| The auto-update feature of Open Embedded Linux Entertainment Center (OpenELEC) 6.0.3, 7.0.1, and 8.0.4 uses neither encrypted connections nor signed updates. A man-in-the-middle attacker could manipulate the update packages to gain root access remotely. |
| An issue has been discovered on the Belden Hirschmann Tofino Xenon Security Appliance before 03.2.00. An incomplete firmware signature allows a local attacker to upgrade the equipment (kernel, file system) with unsigned, attacker-controlled, data. This occurs because the appliance_config file is signed but the .tar.sec file is unsigned. |
| 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. |
| FusionSphere OpenStack V100R006C00SPC102(NFV)has an improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability. The software does not verify the cryptographic signature. An attacker with high privilege may exploit this vulnerability to inject malicious software. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability in Intel Security VirusScan Enterprise Linux (VSEL) 2.0.3 (and earlier) allows remote authenticated users to spoof update server and execute arbitrary code via a crafted input file. |
| Configuration and database backup archives are not signed or validated in Trend Micro Deep Discovery Director 1.1. |
| RubyGems version 2.6.12 and earlier is vulnerable to a DNS hijacking vulnerability that allows a MITM attacker to force the RubyGems client to download and install gems from a server that the attacker controls. |
| When using the CAS Proxy ticket authentication from Spring Security 3.1 to 3.2.4 a malicious CAS Service could trick another CAS Service into authenticating a proxy ticket that was not associated. This is due to the fact that the proxy ticket authentication uses the information from the HttpServletRequest which is populated based upon untrusted information within the HTTP request. This means if there are access control restrictions on which CAS services can authenticate to one another, those restrictions can be bypassed. If users are not using CAS Proxy tickets and not basing access control decisions based upon the CAS Service, then there is no impact to users. |
