Search Results (3225 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2022-50975 2 Avibia, Innomic 20 Avibialine Avlx1 Hd, Avibialine Avlx2 Hd, Avibialine Avlx4 Hd and 17 more 2026-04-15 8.8 High
An unauthenticated remote attacker is able to use an existing session id of a logged in user and gain full access to the device if configuration via ethernet is enabled.
CVE-2024-30162 2026-04-15 7.2 High
Invision Community through 4.7.16 allows remote code execution via the applications/core/modules/admin/editor/toolbar.php IPS\core\modules\admin\editor\_toolbar::addPlugin() method. This method handles uploaded ZIP files that are extracted into the applications/core/interface/ckeditor/ckeditor/plugins/ directory without properly verifying their content. This can be exploited by admin users (with the toolbar_manage permission) to write arbitrary PHP files into that directory, leading to execution of arbitrary PHP code in the context of the web server user.
CVE-2024-48916 1 Redhat 1 Ceph Storage 2026-04-15 8.1 High
Ceph is a distributed object, block, and file storage platform. In versions 19.2.3 and below, it is possible to send an JWT that has "none" as JWT alg. And by doing so the JWT signature is not checked. The vulnerability is most likely in the RadosGW OIDC provider. As of time of publication, a known patched version has yet to be published.
CVE-2025-9265 1 Kiloview 1 Ndi N30 2026-04-15 N/A
A broken authorization vulnerability in Kiloview NDI N30 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to deactivate user verification, giving them access to state changing actions that should only be initiated by administratorsThis issue affects Kiloview NDI N30 and was fixed in Firmware version later than 2.02.0246
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-2025-55278 1 Hcltech 1 Devops Loop 2026-04-15 8.1 High
Improper authentication in the API authentication middleware of HCL DevOps Loop allows authentication tokens to be accepted without proper validation of their expiration and cryptographic signature. As a result, an attacker could potentially use expired or tampered tokens to gain unauthorized access to sensitive resources and perform actions with elevated privileges.
CVE-2024-32962 1 Node Saml Project 1 Xml Crypto 2026-04-15 10 Critical
xml-crypto is an xml digital signature and encryption library for Node.js. In affected versions the default configuration does not check authorization of the signer, it only checks the validity of the signature per section 3.2.2 of the w3 xmldsig-core-20080610 spec. As such, without additional validation steps, the default configuration allows a malicious actor to re-sign an XML document, place the certificate in a `<KeyInfo />` element, and pass `xml-crypto` default validation checks. As a result `xml-crypto` trusts by default any certificate provided via digitally signed XML document's `<KeyInfo />`. `xml-crypto` prefers to use any certificate provided via digitally signed XML document's `<KeyInfo />` even if library was configured to use specific certificate (`publicCert`) for signature verification purposes. An attacker can spoof signature verification by modifying XML document and replacing existing signature with signature generated with malicious private key (created by attacker) and by attaching that private key's certificate to `<KeyInfo />` element. This vulnerability is combination of changes introduced to `4.0.0` on pull request 301 / commit `c2b83f98` and has been addressed in version 6.0.0 with pull request 445 / commit `21201723d`. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade may either check the certificate extracted via `getCertFromKeyInfo` against trusted certificates before accepting the results of the validation or set `xml-crypto's getCertFromKeyInfo` to `() => undefined` forcing `xml-crypto` to use an explicitly configured `publicCert` or `privateKey` for signature verification.
CVE-2024-33494 1 Siemens 1 Simatic Rtls Locating Manager 2026-04-15 6.5 Medium
A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA00) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA10) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA20) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-0DA30) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-1EA10) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-1EA20) (All versions < V3.0.1.1), SIMATIC RTLS Locating Manager (6GT2780-1EA30) (All versions < V3.0.1.1). Affected components do not properly authenticate heartbeat messages. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to affected the availability of secondary RTLS systems configured using a TeeRevProxy service and potentially cause loss of data generated during the time the attack is ongoing.
CVE-2025-52556 2026-04-15 N/A
rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue.
CVE-2025-47934 1 Openpgpjs 1 Openpgpjs 2026-04-15 N/A
OpenPGP.js is a JavaScript implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. Startinf in version 5.0.1 and prior to versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1, a maliciously modified message can be passed to either `openpgp.verify` or `openpgp.decrypt`, causing these functions to return a valid signature verification result while returning data that was not actually signed. This flaw allows signature verifications of inline (non-detached) signed messages (using `openpgp.verify`) and signed-and-encrypted messages (using `openpgp.decrypt` with `verificationKeys`) to be spoofed, since both functions return extracted data that may not match the data that was originally signed. Detached signature verifications are not affected, as no signed data is returned in that case. In order to spoof a message, the attacker needs a single valid message signature (inline or detached) as well as the plaintext data that was legitimately signed, and can then construct an inline-signed message or signed-and-encrypted message with any data of the attacker's choice, which will appear as legitimately signed by affected versions of OpenPGP.js. In other words, any inline-signed message can be modified to return any other data (while still indicating that the signature was valid), and the same is true for signed+encrypted messages if the attacker can obtain a valid signature and encrypt a new message (of the attacker's choice) together with that signature. The issue has been patched in versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1. Some workarounds are available. When verifying inline-signed messages, extract the message and signature(s) from the message returned by `openpgp.readMessage`, and verify the(/each) signature as a detached signature by passing the signature and a new message containing only the data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. When decrypting and verifying signed+encrypted messages, decrypt and verify the message in two steps, by first calling `openpgp.decrypt` without `verificationKeys`, and then passing the returned signature(s) and a new message containing the decrypted data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`.
CVE-2024-35175 2026-04-15 5.3 Medium
sshpiper is a reverse proxy for sshd. Starting in version 1.0.50 and prior to version 1.3.0, the way the proxy protocol listener is implemented in sshpiper can allow an attacker to forge their connecting address. Commit 2ddd69876a1e1119059debc59fe869cb4e754430 added the proxy protocol listener as the only listener in sshpiper, with no option to toggle this functionality off. This means that any connection that sshpiper is directly (or in some cases indirectly) exposed to can use proxy protocol to forge its source address. Any users of sshpiper who need logs from it for whitelisting/rate limiting/security investigations could have them become much less useful if an attacker is sending a spoofed source address. Version 1.3.0 contains a patch for the issue.
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-2024-36472 1 Redhat 2 Enterprise Linux, Rhel Eus 2026-04-15 6.5 Medium
In GNOME Shell through 45.7, a portal helper can be launched automatically (without user confirmation) based on network responses provided by an adversary (e.g., an adversary who controls the local Wi-Fi network), and subsequently loads untrusted JavaScript code, which may lead to resource consumption or other impacts depending on the JavaScript code's behavior.
CVE-2025-47909 2026-04-15 7.3 High
Hosts listed in TrustedOrigins implicitly allow requests from the corresponding HTTP origins, allowing network MitMs to perform CSRF attacks. After the CVE-2025-24358 fix, a network attacker that places a form at http://example.com can't get it to submit to https://example.com because the Origin header is checked with sameOrigin against a synthetic URL. However, if a host is added to TrustedOrigins, both its HTTP and HTTPS origins will be allowed, because the schema of the synthetic URL is ignored and only the host is checked. For example, if an application is hosted on https://example.com and adds example.net to TrustedOrigins, a network attacker can serve a form at http://example.net to perform the attack. Applications should migrate to net/http.CrossOriginProtection, introduced in Go 1.25. If that is not an option, a backport is available as a module at filippo.io/csrf, and a drop-in replacement for the github.com/gorilla/csrf API is available at filippo.io/csrf/gorilla.
CVE-2024-51072 2026-04-15 5.3 Medium
An issue in KIA Seltos vehicle instrument cluster with software and hardware v1.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via ECU reset UDS service. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because the findings came from a potentially unrealistic test environment (an isolated ECU part that was not in a vehicle), and because the ECUReset specification does not allow a manufacturer to require SecurityAccess and Authentication.
CVE-2024-52548 1 Lorextechnology 1 W461asc-e Firmware 2026-04-15 6.7 Medium
An attacker who can execute arbitrary Operating Systems commands, can bypass code signing enforcements in the kernel, and execute arbitrary native code. This vulnerability has been resolved in firmware version 2.800.0000000.8.R.20241111.
CVE-2025-4371 2026-04-15 6.8 Medium
A potential vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo 510 FHD and Performance FHD web cameras that could allow an attacker with physical access to write arbitrary firmware updates to the device over a USB connection.
CVE-2024-54126 1 Tp-link 1 Archer C50 Firmware 2026-04-15 N/A
This vulnerability exists in the TP-Link Archer C50 due to improper signature verification mechanism in the firmware upgrade process at its web interface. An attacker with administrative privileges within the router’s Wi-Fi range could exploit this vulnerability by uploading and executing malicious firmware which could lead to complete compromise of the targeted device.
CVE-2024-54150 2026-04-15 9.1 Critical
cjwt is a C JSON Web Token (JWT) Implementation. Algorithm confusion occurs when a system improperly verifies the type of signature used, allowing attackers to exploit the lack of distinction between signing methods. If the system doesn't differentiate between an HMAC signed token and an RS/EC/PS signed token during verification, it becomes vulnerable to this kind of attack. For instance, an attacker could craft a token with the alg field set to "HS256" while the server expects an asymmetric algorithm like "RS256". The server might mistakenly use the wrong verification method, such as using a public key as the HMAC secret, leading to unauthorised access. For RSA, the key can be computed from a few signatures. For Elliptic Curve (EC), two potential keys can be recovered from one signature. This can be used to bypass the signature mechanism if an application relies on asymmetrically signed tokens. This issue has been addressed in version 2.3.0 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
CVE-2024-56161 2026-04-15 7.2 High
Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious CPU microcode resulting in loss of confidentiality and integrity of a confidential guest running under AMD SEV-SNP.