CWE-345
DiscouragedInsufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
1088 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-V5H4-982G-572V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-31 03:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:32The Wordapp plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass due to an use of insufficiently unique cryptographic signature on the 'wa_pdx_op_config_set' function in versions up to, and including, 1.5.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to the plugin to change the 'validation_token' in the plugin config, providing access to the plugin's remote control functionalities, such as creating an admin access URL, which can be used for privilege escalation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-2987"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-31T03:15:09Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The Wordapp plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass due to an use of insufficiently unique cryptographic signature on the \u0027wa_pdx_op_config_set\u0027 function in versions up to, and including, 1.5.0. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to the plugin to change the \u0027validation_token\u0027 in the plugin config, providing access to the plugin\u0027s remote control functionalities, such as creating an admin access URL, which can be used for privilege escalation.",
"id": "GHSA-v5h4-982g-572v",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:32:05Z",
"published": "2023-05-31T03:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-2987"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lana.report/publication/6e779e9a-e0f9-4102-9f0b-ad46e9c4533f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wordapp/trunk/includes/access.php#L28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wordapp/trunk/includes/config.php#L59"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wordapp/trunk/includes/pdx.php#L64"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3063322/wordapp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/80440bfa-4a02-4441-bbdb-52d7dd065a9d?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V5J9-GH53-CFJX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-24 21:33 – Updated: 2026-08-28 21:30Insufficient verification of data authenticity in the IronVNC client in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2026.2.17.0 and earlier, 2026.1.24.0 and earlier, allows an on-path attacker to intercept and tamper with VNC sessions via automatic acceptance of the server's RSA key during RSA-AES authentication.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-78417"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-24T19:17:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insufficient verification of data authenticity in the IronVNC client in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2026.2.17.0 and earlier, 2026.1.24.0 and earlier, allows an on-path attacker to intercept and tamper with VNC sessions via automatic acceptance of the server\u0027s RSA key during RSA-AES authentication.",
"id": "GHSA-v5j9-gh53-cfjx",
"modified": "2026-08-28T21:30:50Z",
"published": "2026-08-24T21:33:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-78417"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://devolutions.net/security/advisories/DEVO-2026-0029"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V62Q-78F9-67XV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-19 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-30 00:01Syltek application before its 10.22.00 version, does not correctly check that a product ID has a valid payment associated to it. This could allow an attacker to forge a request and bypass the payment system by marking items as payed without any verification.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-4031"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-18T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Syltek application before its 10.22.00 version, does not correctly check that a product ID has a valid payment associated to it. This could allow an attacker to forge a request and bypass the payment system by marking items as payed without any verification.",
"id": "GHSA-v62q-78f9-67xv",
"modified": "2022-03-30T00:01:24Z",
"published": "2022-03-19T00:00:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-4031"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.incibe-cert.es/en/early-warning/security-advisories/syltek-insufficient-verification-data-authenticity"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V7PC-74H8-XQ2H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-10 21:52 – Updated: 2025-02-10 21:52Summary
The DNSSEC validation routines treat entire RRsets of DNSKEY records as trusted once they have established trust in only one of the DNSKEYs. As a result, if a zone includes a DNSKEY with a public key that matches a configured trust anchor, all keys in that zone will be trusted to authenticate other records in the zone. There is a second variant of this vulnerability involving DS records, where an authenticated DS record covering one DNSKEY leads to trust in signatures made by an unrelated DNSKEY in the same zone.
Details
verify_dnskey_rrset() will return Ok(true) if any record's public key matches a trust anchor. This results in verify_rrset() returning a Secure proof. This ultimately results in successfully verifying a response containing DNSKEY records. verify_default_rrset() looks up DNSKEY records by calling handle.lookup(), which takes the above code path. There's a comment following this that says "DNSKEYs were already validated by the inner query in the above lookup", but this is not the case. To fully verify the whole RRset of DNSKEYs, it would be necessary to check self-signatures by the trusted key over the other keys. Later in verify_default_rrset(), verify_rrset_with_dnskey() is called multiple times with different keys and signatures, and if any call succeeds, then its Proof is returned.
Similarly, verify_dnskey_rrset() returns Ok(false) if any DNSKEY record is covered by a DS record. A comment says "If all the keys are valid, then we are secure", but this is only checking that one key is authenticated by a DS in the parent zone's delegation point. This time, after control flow returns to verify_rrset(), it will call verify_default_rrset(). The special handling for DNSKEYs in verify_default_rrset() will then call verify_rrset_with_dnskey() using each KSK DNSKEY record, and if one call succeeds, return its Proof. If there are multiple KSK DNSKEYs in the RRset, then this leads to another authentication break. We need to either pass the authenticated DNSKEYs from the DS covering check to the RRSIG validation, or we need to perform this RRSIG validation of the DNSKEY RRset inside verify_dnskey_rrset() and cut verify_default_rrset() out of DNSKEY RRset validation entirely.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "hickory-proto"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.24.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "hickory-proto"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.25.0-alpha.1"
},
{
"fixed": "0.25.0-alpha.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-02-10T21:52:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Summary\n\nThe DNSSEC validation routines treat entire RRsets of DNSKEY records as trusted once they have established trust in only one of the DNSKEYs. As a result, if a zone includes a DNSKEY with a public key that matches a configured trust anchor, all keys in that zone will be trusted to authenticate other records in the zone. There is a second variant of this vulnerability involving DS records, where an authenticated DS record covering one DNSKEY leads to trust in signatures made by an unrelated DNSKEY in the same zone.\n\nDetails\n\nverify_dnskey_rrset() will return Ok(true) if any record\u0027s public key matches a trust anchor. This results in verify_rrset() returning a Secure proof. This ultimately results in successfully verifying a response containing DNSKEY records. verify_default_rrset() looks up DNSKEY records by calling handle.lookup(), which takes the above code path. There\u0027s a comment following this that says \"DNSKEYs were already validated by the inner query in the above lookup\", but this is not the case. To fully verify the whole RRset of DNSKEYs, it would be necessary to check self-signatures by the trusted key over the other keys. Later in verify_default_rrset(), verify_rrset_with_dnskey() is called multiple times with different keys and signatures, and if any call succeeds, then its Proof is returned.\n\nSimilarly, verify_dnskey_rrset() returns Ok(false) if any DNSKEY record is covered by a DS record. A comment says \"If all the keys are valid, then we are secure\", but this is only checking that one key is authenticated by a DS in the parent zone\u0027s delegation point. This time, after control flow returns to verify_rrset(), it will call verify_default_rrset(). The special handling for DNSKEYs in verify_default_rrset() will then call verify_rrset_with_dnskey() using each KSK DNSKEY record, and if one call succeeds, return its Proof. If there are multiple KSK DNSKEYs in the RRset, then this leads to another authentication break. We need to either pass the authenticated DNSKEYs from the DS covering check to the RRSIG validation, or we need to perform this RRSIG validation of the DNSKEY RRset inside verify_dnskey_rrset() and cut verify_default_rrset() out of DNSKEY RRset validation entirely.",
"id": "GHSA-v7pc-74h8-xq2h",
"modified": "2025-02-10T21:52:29Z",
"published": "2025-02-10T21:52:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hickory-dns/hickory-dns/security/advisories/GHSA-37wc-h8xc-5hc4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/hickory-dns/hickory-dns"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2025-0006.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Hickory DNS failure to verify self-signed RRSIG for DNSKEYs"
}
GHSA-V7QC-FPQM-P46F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-01 15:30 – Updated: 2026-08-01 15:30Wazuh 5.0.0-beta1 (fixed in 5.0.0-beta3) does not validate or override the cluster_name and cluster_node fields in inventory-sync Start FlatBuffer messages, while validating only the agentid against the authenticated agent identity. This allows a low-privileged enrolled agent to spoof cluster attribution in indexed inventory and vulnerability documents by forging wazuh.cluster.name values and influencing the document _id prefix, potentially tampering with inventory records or, in shared-indexer multi-cluster deployments, poisoning another cluster's records when numeric agent IDs collide.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-67307"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-01T13:17:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Wazuh 5.0.0-beta1 (fixed in 5.0.0-beta3) does not validate or override the cluster_name and cluster_node fields in inventory-sync Start FlatBuffer messages, while validating only the agentid against the authenticated agent identity. This allows a low-privileged enrolled agent to spoof cluster attribution in indexed inventory and vulnerability documents by forging wazuh.cluster.name values and influencing the document _id prefix, potentially tampering with inventory records or, in shared-indexer multi-cluster deployments, poisoning another cluster\u0027s records when numeric agent IDs collide.",
"id": "GHSA-v7qc-fpqm-p46f",
"modified": "2026-08-01T15:30:27Z",
"published": "2026-08-01T15:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh/security/advisories/GHSA-jv5p-fhwh-9w55"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-67307"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wazuh/wazuh/commit/b3dae02ec9ddcfd449cb61b4c76d180e3e43f79a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/wazuh-before-beta3-cluster-attribution-spoofing-via-inventory-sync"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-V8XR-QF65-QQXJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-22 15:31 – Updated: 2026-08-22 15:31WWBN AVideo through commit 9c39d8c8b4c1f75540788d6b391740852ceb0732 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the Users_affiliations add.json.php endpoint that allows authenticated users to forge two-party consent records by supplying the counterparty's agreement timestamp. Attackers can create a forged affiliation with status='a' and then reassign video ownership to arbitrary users through the videoAddNew.json.php endpoint, which trusts the forged affiliation as an authorization term.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58002"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-22T13:16:38Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "WWBN AVideo through commit 9c39d8c8b4c1f75540788d6b391740852ceb0732 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the Users_affiliations add.json.php endpoint that allows authenticated users to forge two-party consent records by supplying the counterparty\u0027s agreement timestamp. Attackers can create a forged affiliation with status=\u0027a\u0027 and then reassign video ownership to arbitrary users through the videoAddNew.json.php endpoint, which trusts the forged affiliation as an authorization term.",
"id": "GHSA-v8xr-qf65-qqxj",
"modified": "2026-08-22T15:31:02Z",
"published": "2026-08-22T15:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/security/advisories/GHSA-rg7g-cgjq-4wx8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/wwbn-avideo-authorization-bypass-via-users-affiliations-add-json-php"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-V942-PVXC-34W4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-22 00:32 – Updated: 2026-07-22 00:32Vulnerability in the Oracle Production Scheduling product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.3-12.2.15. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Production Scheduling. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Oracle Production Scheduling accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.3 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-62517"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-21T22:19:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Vulnerability in the Oracle Production Scheduling product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Supported versions that are affected are 12.2.3-12.2.15. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows unauthenticated attacker with network access via HTTP to compromise Oracle Production Scheduling. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker. Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in unauthorized access to critical data or complete access to all Oracle Production Scheduling accessible data. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 5.3 (Confidentiality impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N).",
"id": "GHSA-v942-pvxc-34w4",
"modified": "2026-07-22T00:32:32Z",
"published": "2026-07-22T00:32:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpujul2026.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V9V8-JP27-55GF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-04 15:32 – Updated: 2026-08-04 15:32marimo before 0.23.15 contains a configuration injection vulnerability that allows notebook authors to exfiltrate operator API keys by embedding a malicious base_url in PEP-723 inline script metadata, which is merged into session configuration with higher precedence than the operator's own settings due to insufficient sanitization in sanitize_pyproject_dict. When an operator opens the crafted notebook and makes an AI request, marimo resolves the attacker-controlled base_url from the notebook config while falling back to the operator's OPENAI_API_KEY environment variable for authentication, transmitting the API key to the attacker-controlled endpoint without requiring any cell execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-67618"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-04T15:16:41Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "marimo before 0.23.15 contains a configuration injection vulnerability that allows notebook authors to exfiltrate operator API keys by embedding a malicious base_url in PEP-723 inline script metadata, which is merged into session configuration with higher precedence than the operator\u0027s own settings due to insufficient sanitization in sanitize_pyproject_dict. When an operator opens the crafted notebook and makes an AI request, marimo resolves the attacker-controlled base_url from the notebook config while falling back to the operator\u0027s OPENAI_API_KEY environment variable for authentication, transmitting the API key to the attacker-controlled endpoint without requiring any cell execution.",
"id": "GHSA-v9v8-jp27-55gf",
"modified": "2026-08-04T15:32:24Z",
"published": "2026-08-04T15:32:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-67618"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo/pull/10281"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo/commit/1a21bd71e258438d2511136b5edacc94c08855f4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo/releases/tag/0.23.15"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/marimo-api-key-exfiltration-via-malicious-notebook-pep-723-metadata"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-VC3V-PPC7-V486
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-14 22:21 – Updated: 2024-11-22 20:43Impact
A node does not check if an image is allowed to run if a parent_id is set. A malicious party that breaches the server may modify it to set a fake parent_id and send a task of a non-whitelisted algorithm. The node will then execute it because the parent_id that is set prevents checks from being run. Relevant node code here
This impacts all servers that are breached by an expert user
Patches
Fixed in v4.1.2
Workarounds
None
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "vantage6-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "vantage6-node"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-47631"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-358"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-11-14T22:21:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-14T21:15:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nA node does not check if an image is allowed to run if a `parent_id` is set. A malicious party that breaches the server may modify it to set a fake `parent_id` and send a task of a non-whitelisted algorithm. The node will then execute it because the `parent_id` that is set prevents checks from being run. Relevant node code [here](https://github.com/vantage6/vantage6/blob/version/4.1.1/vantage6-node/vantage6/node/docker/docker_manager.py#L265-L268)\n\nThis impacts all servers that are breached by an expert user\n\n### Patches\nFixed in v4.1.2\n\n### Workarounds\nNone\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-vc3v-ppc7-v486",
"modified": "2024-11-22T20:43:06Z",
"published": "2023-11-14T22:21:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vantage6/vantage6/security/advisories/GHSA-vc3v-ppc7-v486"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-47631"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vantage6/vantage6/commit/bf83521eb12fa80aa5fc92ef1692010a9a7f8243"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vantage6-node/PYSEC-2023-303.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vantage6-server/PYSEC-2023-304.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vantage6/vantage6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vantage6/vantage6/blob/version/4.1.1/vantage6-node/vantage6/node/docker/docker_manager.py#L265-L268"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "vantage6-server node accepts non-whitelisted algorithms from malicious server"
}
GHSA-VF28-R8MX-J24P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-22 21:30 – Updated: 2025-04-15 21:31When loading a script with Subresource Integrity, attackers with an injection capability could trigger the reuse of previously cached entries with incorrect, different integrity metadata. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 103.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36315"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-22T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "When loading a script with Subresource Integrity, attackers with an injection capability could trigger the reuse of previously cached entries with incorrect, different integrity metadata. This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 103.",
"id": "GHSA-vf28-r8mx-j24p",
"modified": "2025-04-15T21:31:26Z",
"published": "2022-12-22T21:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36315"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1762520"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2022-28"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-141: Cache Poisoning
An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value.
CAPEC-142: DNS Cache Poisoning
A domain name server translates a domain name (such as www.example.com) into an IP address that Internet hosts use to contact Internet resources. An adversary modifies a public DNS cache to cause certain names to resolve to incorrect addresses that the adversary specifies. The result is that client applications that rely upon the targeted cache for domain name resolution will be directed not to the actual address of the specified domain name but to some other address. Adversaries can use this to herd clients to sites that install malware on the victim's computer or to masquerade as part of a Pharming attack.
CAPEC-148: Content Spoofing
An adversary modifies content to make it contain something other than what the original content producer intended while keeping the apparent source of the content unchanged. The term content spoofing is most often used to describe modification of web pages hosted by a target to display the adversary's content instead of the owner's content. However, any content can be spoofed, including the content of email messages, file transfers, or the content of other network communication protocols. Content can be modified at the source (e.g. modifying the source file for a web page) or in transit (e.g. intercepting and modifying a message between the sender and recipient). Usually, the adversary will attempt to hide the fact that the content has been modified, but in some cases, such as with web site defacement, this is not necessary. Content Spoofing can lead to malware exposure, financial fraud (if the content governs financial transactions), privacy violations, and other unwanted outcomes.
CAPEC-218: Spoofing of UDDI/ebXML Messages
An attacker spoofs a UDDI, ebXML, or similar message in order to impersonate a service provider in an e-business transaction. UDDI, ebXML, and similar standards are used to identify businesses in e-business transactions. Among other things, they identify a particular participant, WSDL information for SOAP transactions, and supported communication protocols, including security protocols. By spoofing one of these messages an attacker could impersonate a legitimate business in a transaction or could manipulate the protocols used between a client and business. This could result in disclosure of sensitive information, loss of message integrity, or even financial fraud.
CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.
CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.
CAPEC-701: Browser in the Middle (BiTM)
An adversary exploits the inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to establish an unnoticed remote desktop connection in the victim's browser to the adversary's system. The adversary must deploy a web client with a remote desktop session that the victim can access.