| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network. |
| rclone from 1.55.0 before 1.75.2 contains a signature verification bypass in stable selfupdate that trusts checksums from unsigned bytes preceding the PGP-clearsigned SHA256SUMS block. Attackers controlling the release distribution path can prepend an unsigned checksum line matching a malicious archive, causing selfupdate to install an attacker-controlled rclone executable. |
| Forge (also called node-forge) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to 1.4.1, the affected implementation used certificate.verify(child), _verifySignature(), lib/x509.js to process the relevant input or security decision. node-forge selected RSA padding and RSASSA-PSS parameters from the issuer certificate rather than the child certificate being verified. A child labeled as RSASSA-PSS could therefore be accepted with a PKCS#1 v1.5 signature when the issuer used PKCS#1 v1.5. The signature still had to be produced with the trusted issuer's private key, so this did not permit certificate identity forgery, but it could bypass policies that require a declared signature scheme. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1. |
| Botan is a C++ cryptography library. From 1.11.34 until 3.13.0, the botan ocsp_check command requested an OCSP response from a certificate's Authority Information Access URL without verifying the response signature or authorizing the signer. A malicious responder or on-path attacker could return a matching and timely GOOD response with an empty, invalid, or unauthorized signature, causing a revoked certificate to produce exit status 0 and OCSP check OK output. Only the command-line interface is affected. This issue is fixed in version 3.13.0. |
| A signature validation vulnerability exists in Foxit PDF Editor/Reader’s handling of incrementally updated PDF documents. Changes to visible document content may not invalidate the existing signature, allowing attackers to alter signed content and potentially carry out content spoofing while the document continues to appear validly signed. |
| Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. Prior to 1.9.1, Authlib's OctKey.import_key() and HMAC signing and verification path accept zero-length key material. If an application's secret lookup can return an empty string or empty bytes, a remote attacker can compute the deterministic HS256, HS384, or HS512 signature for arbitrary token claims and have Authlib treat the token as authentic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1. |
| Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. From 1.3.1 until 1.9.0, OctKey.import_key() checks asymmetric-key markers only at byte zero while Authlib's PEM loaders accept leading whitespace, comments, or a byte-order mark. In deployments that use the documented mixed algorithm registry and already configure verification with PEM or certificate bytes containing such a prefix, an unauthenticated attacker who knows those same public-key bytes can use them as an HMAC secret and forge HS256 tokens with arbitrary identity or authorization claims. This is a bypass of the remediation for CVE-2024-37568. The module-level jwt object reaches OctKey.import_key() in authlib/jose/rfc7518/oct_key.py, where POSSIBLE_UNSAFE_KEYS fails to identify prefixed asymmetric key material. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.0. |
| A signature verification vulnerability was discovered in the update installation functionality due to inconsistent validation of the update bundle contents. An attacker with administrative privileges can remotely supply a crafted update bundle that passes signature verification but runs an unsigned script when the bundle is installed. The script runs with root privileges, allowing the attacker to read or modify sensitive data, change the appliance configuration, or shut down the appliance. |
| Sensitive information disclosure and manipulation due to improper token validation. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 17 (Linux, Windows) before build 42587. |
| Sensitive information disclosure and manipulation due to improper token validation. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 17 (Linux, Windows) before build 42587. |
| A vulnerability allowing an unauthenticated attacker to bypass REST API authentication with a forged federation token and receive responses from REST API endpoints that do not call the Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 backup service. |
| A Kafka broker using SASL/OAUTHBEARER with the default validator (sasl.oauthbearer.jwt.validator.class=DefaultJwtValidator) selects its implementation from configuration. When sasl.oauthbearer.jwks.endpoint.url is set, the validator verifies the JWT signature. When that URL is unset (the default) and no verification key resolver is supplied, DefaultJwtValidator silently falls back to ClientJwtValidator, which does not verify the JWT signature, algorithm, or issuer - and the broker starts with no warning or error. This is the residual of CVE-2026-33557, whose fix restored signature verification only on the path where the JWKS endpoint URL is set.
Impact:
A broker in this state accepts any structurally valid JWT, including "alg":"none" tokens. An unauthenticated remote attacker who can reach the listener can forge a token asserting any principal - including configured superusers - and gain full access to the cluster. Only brokers that enable SASL/OAUTHBEARER validation without a JWKS endpoint URL (and without a custom verification key resolver) are affected; brokers that set the URL verify signatures and are not affected. Unlike CVE-2026-110952 (issuer/audience not enforced by default), here no signature is verified at all.
Mitigation (all affected versions, no upgrade required):
Set sasl.oauthbearer.jwks.endpoint.url for every listener/mechanism that uses OAuthBearerValidatorCallbackHandler, or configure a signature-verifying sasl.oauthbearer.jwt.validator.class.
Resolution:
From Apache Kafka 4.2.2, 4.3.1, and 4.4.0: a broker that would fall back to the non-verifying ClientJwtValidator fails to start with a ConfigException instead of running without signature verification (secure by default). |
| The TiendaCrypto para WooCommerce WordPress plugin through 1.2.1 does not correctly verify the authenticity of its payment webhook, validating the request signature against a key that is always empty, which allows unauthenticated attackers to forge webhook notifications and mark arbitrary WooCommerce orders as paid on web servers that preserve request header case. |
| In Progress® Telerik® Document Processing Libraries prior to version 2026.3.1027, improper verification of cryptographic signatures and improper certificate validation in RadPdfProcessing digital signature validation allow an unauthenticated attacker to cause signature validation to report forged content as unmodified and its signing certificate as valid via a crafted signed PDF document. |
| Electrum before 4.8.3 fails to verify signatures of wallet-owned inputs in unconfirmed mempool transactions, allowing malicious servers to replace a just-broadcast transaction with a conflicting one. Attackers can swallow the user's transaction and display an invalid zero-fee copy paying an attacker address, tricking users into RBF fee-bumping and signing it. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Windows Key Distribution Center allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in the attribute certificate path validator (PkixAttrCertPathValidator, also used by PkixAttrCertPathBuilder) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows a remote attacker to have a forged X.509 attribute certificate accepted as valid, and so obtain whatever roles or privileges an application grants on the strength of its attributes, via an attribute certificate that names a trusted attribute authority as its issuer but was not signed by it, because the RFC 3281 validation steps check the holder and issuer certification paths, validity period, extensions and revocation status but never verify the attribute certificate's signature with the issuer's public key. Only applications that use these classes to validate attribute certificates are affected. |
| Sensitive information disclosure due to improper token validation. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 17 (Linux, Windows) before build 42587. |
| Sensitive information disclosure due to improper token validation. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 17 (Linux, Windows) before build 42587. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Windows Update Stack allows an authorized attacker to perform spoofing locally. |
