Export limit exceeded: 421198 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (3237 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-36277 | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature issue exists in "FreeFrom - the nostr client" App versions prior to 1.3.5 for Android and iOS. The affected app cannot detect event data with invalid signatures. | ||||
| CVE-2024-53916 | 1 Openstack | 1 Neutron | 2026-04-15 | 7.5 High |
| In OpenStack Neutron before 25.0.1, neutron/extensions/tagging.py can use an incorrect ID during policy enforcement. It does not apply the proper policy check for changing network tags. An unprivileged tenant is able to change (add and clear) tags on network objects that do not belong to the tenant, and this action is not subjected to the proper policy authorization check. This affects 23 before 23.2.1, 24 before 24.0.2, and 25 before 25.0.1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-36347 | 2026-04-15 | 6.4 Medium | ||
| Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious microcode, potentially resulting in loss of integrity of x86 instruction execution, loss of confidentiality and integrity of data in x86 CPU privileged context and compromise of SMM execution environment. | ||||
| CVE-2024-53848 | 2026-04-15 | 7.1 High | ||
| check-jsonschema is a CLI and set of pre-commit hooks for jsonschema validation. The default cache strategy uses the basename of a remote schema as the name of the file in the cache, e.g. `https://example.org/schema.json` will be stored as `schema.json`. This naming allows for conflicts. If an attacker can get a user to run `check-jsonschema` against a malicious schema URL, e.g., `https://example.evil.org/schema.json`, they can insert their own schema into the cache and it will be picked up and used instead of the appropriate schema. Such a cache confusion attack could be used to allow data to pass validation which should have been rejected. This issue has been patched in version 0.30.0. All users are advised to upgrade. A few workarounds exist: 1. Users can use `--no-cache` to disable caching. 2. Users can use `--cache-filename` to select filenames for use in the cache, or to ensure that other usages do not overwrite the cached schema. (Note: this flag is being deprecated as part of the remediation effort.) 3. Users can explicitly download the schema before use as a local file, as in `curl -LOs https://example.org/schema.json; check-jsonschema --schemafile ./schema.json` | ||||
| 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-2024-38807 | 2026-04-15 | 6.3 Medium | ||
| Applications that use spring-boot-loader or spring-boot-loader-classic and contain custom code that performs signature verification of nested jar files may be vulnerable to signature forgery where content that appears to have been signed by one signer has, in fact, been signed by another. | ||||
| CVE-2025-54419 | 1 Node-saml | 1 Node-saml | 2026-04-15 | 10 Critical |
| A SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In version 5.0.1, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. To conduct the attack an attacker would need a validly signed document from the identity provider (IdP). This is fixed in version 5.1.0. | ||||
| CVE-2025-54982 | 1 Zscaler | 1 Authentication Server | 2026-04-15 | 9.6 Critical |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature in Zscaler's SAML authentication mechanism on the server-side allowed an authentication abuse. | ||||
| CVE-2025-56438 | 1 Nous | 1 W3 Smart Wifi Camera | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium |
| An issue in the firmware update mechanism of Nous W3 Smart WiFi Camera v1.33.50.82 allows unauthenticated and physically proximate attackers to escalate privileges to root via supplying a crafted update.tar archive file stored on a FAT32-formatted SD card. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40919 | 2026-04-15 | 6.5 Medium | ||
| Authen::DigestMD5 versions 0.01 through 0.02 for Perl generate the cnonce insecurely. The cnonce (client nonce) is generated from an MD5 hash of the PID, the epoch time and the built-in rand function. The PID will come from a small set of numbers, and the epoch time may be guessed, if it is not leaked from the HTTP Date header. The built-in rand function is unsuitable for cryptographic usage. According to RFC 2831, "The cnonce-value is an opaque quoted string value provided by the client and used by both client and server to avoid chosen plaintext attacks, and to provide mutual authentication. The security of the implementation depends on a good choice. It is RECOMMENDED that it contain at least 64 bits of entropy." | ||||
| CVE-2025-40918 | 2026-04-15 | 6.5 Medium | ||
| Authen::SASL::Perl::DIGEST_MD5 versions 2.04 through 2.1800 for Perl generates the cnonce insecurely. The cnonce (client nonce) is generated from an MD5 hash of the PID, the epoch time and the built-in rand function. The PID will come from a small set of numbers, and the epoch time may be guessed, if it is not leaked from the HTTP Date header. The built-in rand function is unsuitable for cryptographic usage. According to RFC 2831, The cnonce-value is an opaque quoted string value provided by the client and used by both client and server to avoid chosen plaintext attacks, and to provide mutual authentication. The security of the implementation depends on a good choice. It is RECOMMENDED that it contain at least 64 bits of entropy. | ||||
| CVE-2021-1461 | 2026-04-15 | 4.9 Medium | ||
| A vulnerability in the Image Signature Verification feature of Cisco SD-WAN Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with Administrator-level credentials to install a malicious software patch on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper verification of digital signatures for patch images. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by crafting an unsigned software patch to bypass signature checks and loading it on an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to boot a malicious software patch image.Cisco has released software updates that address the vulnerability described in this advisory. There are no workarounds that address this vulnerability. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40780 | 1 Isc | 1 Bind 9 | 2026-04-15 | 8.6 High |
| In specific circumstances, due to a weakness in the Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) that is used, it is possible for an attacker to predict the source port and query ID that BIND will use. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.39, 9.20.0 through 9.20.13, 9.21.0 through 9.21.12, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.39-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.13-S1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40778 | 1 Isc | 1 Bind 9 | 2026-04-15 | 8.6 High |
| Under certain circumstances, BIND is too lenient when accepting records from answers, allowing an attacker to inject forged data into the cache. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.39, 9.20.0 through 9.20.13, 9.21.0 through 9.21.12, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.39-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.13-S1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40776 | 1 Isc | 1 Bind | 2026-04-15 | 8.6 High |
| A `named` caching resolver that is configured to send ECS (EDNS Client Subnet) options may be vulnerable to a cache-poisoning attack. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.37-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.10-S1. | ||||
| CVE-2025-3462 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| "This issue is limited to motherboards and does not affect laptops, desktop computers, or other endpoints." An insufficient validation in ASUS DriverHub may allow unauthorized sources to interact with the software's features via crafted HTTP requests. Refer to the 'Security Update for ASUS DriverHub' section on the ASUS Security Advisory for more information. | ||||
| 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-2023-52043 | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High | ||
| An issue in D-Link COVR 1100, 1102, 1103 AC1200 Dual-Band Whole-Home Mesh Wi-Fi System (Hardware Rev B1) truncates Wireless Access Point Passwords (WPA-PSK) allowing an attacker to gain unauthorized network access via weak authentication controls. | ||||
| CVE-2025-40758 | 1 Mendix | 2 Mendix, Saml | 2026-04-15 | 8.7 High |
| A vulnerability has been identified in Mendix SAML (Mendix 10.12 compatible) (All versions < V4.0.3), Mendix SAML (Mendix 10.21 compatible) (All versions < V4.1.2), Mendix SAML (Mendix 9.24 compatible) (All versions < V3.6.21). Affected versions of the module insufficiently enforce signature validation and binding checks. This could allow unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack an account in specific SSO configurations. | ||||
| CVE-2024-1718 | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium | ||
| The Claudio Sanches – Checkout Cielo for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to insufficient payment validation in the update_order_status() function in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the status of orders to paid bypassing payment. | ||||