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.
944 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GG8P-2J6G-G8MC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-15 21:30 – Updated: 2022-12-20 03:30A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Safari 16.2, tvOS 16.2, iCloud for Windows 14.1, iOS 15.7.2 and iPadOS 15.7.2, macOS Ventura 13.1, iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2, watchOS 9.2. Processing maliciously crafted web content may bypass Same Origin Policy.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-46692"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-15T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in Safari 16.2, tvOS 16.2, iCloud for Windows 14.1, iOS 15.7.2 and iPadOS 15.7.2, macOS Ventura 13.1, iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2, watchOS 9.2. Processing maliciously crafted web content may bypass Same Origin Policy.",
"id": "GHSA-gg8p-2j6g-g8mc",
"modified": "2022-12-20T03:30:27Z",
"published": "2022-12-15T21:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-46692"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202305-32"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213530"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213531"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213532"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213535"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213536"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213537"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213538"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Dec/20"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Dec/21"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Dec/23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Dec/26"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2022/Dec/28"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GHW3-5QVM-3MQC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-22 19:59 – Updated: 2022-12-22 19:59Impact
This vulnerability may allow attackers to spoof their IP address when your server is behind a reverse proxy.
Patches
Upgrade to v4.2.11 or later, and configure Config\App::$proxyIPs.
Workarounds
Do not use $request->getIPAddress().
References
- https://codeigniter4.github.io/userguide/incoming/request.html#CodeIgniter\HTTP\Request::getIPAddress
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4 * Email us at SECURITY.md
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "codeigniter4/framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.2.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23556"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-22T19:59:58Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-22T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThis vulnerability may allow attackers to spoof their IP address when your server is behind a reverse proxy.\n\n### Patches\nUpgrade to v4.2.11 or later, and configure `Config\\App::$proxyIPs`.\n\n### Workarounds\nDo not use `$request-\u003egetIPAddress()`.\n\n### References\n- https://codeigniter4.github.io/userguide/incoming/request.html#CodeIgniter\\HTTP\\Request::getIPAddress\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4](https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/issues)\n* Email us at [SECURITY.md](https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/blob/develop/SECURITY.md)\n",
"id": "GHSA-ghw3-5qvm-3mqc",
"modified": "2022-12-22T19:59:58Z",
"published": "2022-12-22T19:59:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/security/advisories/GHSA-ghw3-5qvm-3mqc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23556"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/commit/5ca8c99b2db09a2a08a013836628028ddc984659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codeigniter4.github.io/userguide/incoming/request.html#CodeIgniter\\HTTP\\Request::getIPAddress"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/codeigniter4/framework/CVE-2022-23556.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CodeIgniter4 allows spoofing of IP address when using proxy"
}
GHSA-GJ2R-PHWG-6RWW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-26 18:00 – Updated: 2023-09-27 15:42Impact
An attacker with the ability to update pod labels can cause Cilium to apply incorrect network policies.
This issue arises due to the fact that on pod update, Cilium incorrectly uses user-provided pod labels to select the policies which apply to the workload in question.
This can affect:
- Cilium network policies that use the namespace, service account or cluster constructs to restrict traffic
- Cilium clusterwide network policies that use Cilium namespace labels to select the Pod
- Kubernetes network policies
Non-existent construct names can be provided, which bypass all network policies applicable to the construct. For example, providing a pod with a non-existent namespace as the value of the io.kubernetes.pod.namespace label results in none of the namespaced CiliumNetworkPolicies applying to the pod in question.
This attack requires the attacker to have Kubernetes API Server access, as described in the Cilium Threat Model.
Patches
This issue affects:
- Cilium <= v1.14.1
- Cilium <= v1.13.6
- Cilium <= v1.12.13
This issue has been resolved in:
- Cilium v1.14.2
- Cilium v1.13.7
- Cilium v1.12.14
Workarounds
An admission webhook can be used to prevent pod label updates to the k8s:io.kubernetes.pod.namespace and io.cilium.k8s.policy.* keys.
Acknowledgements
The Cilium community has worked together with members of Palantir and Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @odinuge for reporting this issue and to @nebril for the fix.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on Slack.
If you think you have found a vulnerability in Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our private security mailing list – security@cilium.io – first, before disclosing them in any public forums. This is a private mailing list where only members of the Cilium internal security team are subscribed to, and is treated as top priority.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.13.6"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.13.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.14.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.14.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.14.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.12.13"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/cilium/cilium"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.12.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-39347"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-09-26T18:00:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-27T15:18:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nAn attacker with the ability to update pod labels can cause Cilium to apply incorrect network policies.\n\nThis issue arises due to the fact that on pod update, Cilium incorrectly uses user-provided pod labels to select the policies which apply to the workload in question.\n\nThis can affect:\n\n* Cilium network policies that use the namespace, service account or cluster constructs to restrict traffic\n* Cilium clusterwide network policies that use Cilium namespace labels to select the Pod\n* Kubernetes network policies\n\nNon-existent construct names can be provided, which bypass all network policies applicable to the construct. For example, providing a pod with a non-existent namespace as the value of the `io.kubernetes.pod.namespace` label results in none of the namespaced CiliumNetworkPolicies applying to the pod in question.\n\nThis attack requires the attacker to have [Kubernetes API Server access](https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/security/threat-model/#kubernetes-api-server-attacker), as described in the Cilium Threat Model.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis issue affects:\n\n- Cilium \u003c= v1.14.1\n- Cilium \u003c= v1.13.6\n- Cilium \u003c= v1.12.13\n\nThis issue has been resolved in:\n\n- Cilium v1.14.2\n- Cilium v1.13.7\n- Cilium v1.12.14\n\n### Workarounds\n\nAn admission webhook can be used to prevent pod label updates to the `k8s:io.kubernetes.pod.namespace` and `io.cilium.k8s.policy.*` keys.\n\n### Acknowledgements\nThe Cilium community has worked together with members of Palantir and Isovalent to prepare these mitigations. Special thanks to @odinuge for reporting this issue and to @nebril for the fix.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please reach out on [Slack](https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/community/community/#slack).\n\nIf you think you have found a vulnerability in Cilium, we strongly encourage you to report it to our private security mailing list \u2013 [security@cilium.io](mailto:security@cilium.io) \u2013 first, before disclosing them in any public forums. This is a private mailing list where only members of the Cilium internal security team are subscribed to, and is treated as top priority.",
"id": "GHSA-gj2r-phwg-6rww",
"modified": "2023-09-27T15:42:11Z",
"published": "2023-09-26T18:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium/security/advisories/GHSA-gj2r-phwg-6rww"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-39347"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/security/threat-model/#kubernetes-api-server-attacker"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cilium/cilium"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Kubernetes users may update Pod labels to bypass network policy"
}
GHSA-GM9G-2G8V-FVXJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-06-06 15:32 – Updated: 2021-09-16 20:59All versions of upmerge are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The merge() function fails to prevent user input to alter an Object's prototype, allowing attackers to modify override properties of all objects in the application. This may lead to Denial of Service or may be chained with other vulnerabilities leading to Remote Code Execution.
Recommendation
No fix is currently available. Consider using an alternative module until a fix is made available.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "upmerge"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-400"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2019-06-06T10:04:57Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "All versions of `upmerge` are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The merge() function fails to prevent user input to alter an Object\u0027s prototype, allowing attackers to modify override properties of all objects in the application. This may lead to Denial of Service or may be chained with other vulnerabilities leading to Remote Code Execution.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nNo fix is currently available. Consider using an alternative module until a fix is made available.\n",
"id": "GHSA-gm9g-2g8v-fvxj",
"modified": "2021-09-16T20:59:20Z",
"published": "2019-06-06T15:32:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/439120"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jazzfog/UpMerge"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-UPMERGE-174133"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/809"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Prototype Pollution in upmerge"
}
GHSA-GQH6-F673-CCGC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-06 06:30 – Updated: 2025-10-02 15:31A flaw was found in Booth, a cluster ticket manager. If a specially-crafted hash is passed to gcry_md_get_algo_dlen(), it may allow an invalid HMAC to be accepted by the Booth server.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-3049"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-06T06:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in Booth, a cluster ticket manager. If a specially-crafted hash is passed to gcry_md_get_algo_dlen(), it may allow an invalid HMAC to be accepted by the Booth server.",
"id": "GHSA-gqh6-f673-ccgc",
"modified": "2025-10-02T15:31:11Z",
"published": "2024-06-06T06:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-3049"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ClusterLabs/booth/pull/142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3657"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3658"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3660"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:3661"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:4400"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2024:4411"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-3049"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272082"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/09/msg00037.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ERCFM3HXFJKLEMMWU3CZLPKH5LZAEDAN"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KPK5BHYOB7CFFRQAN55YV5LH44PWHMQD"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GQH9-F35V-5G5X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:26 – Updated: 2025-11-17 21:31jitsi-meet-electron (aka Jitsi Meet Electron) before 2.3.0 calls the Electron shell.openExternal function without verifying that the URL is for an http or https resource, in some circumstances.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-25019"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-08-29T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "jitsi-meet-electron (aka Jitsi Meet Electron) before 2.3.0 calls the Electron shell.openExternal function without verifying that the URL is for an http or https resource, in some circumstances.",
"id": "GHSA-gqh9-f35v-5g5x",
"modified": "2025-11-17T21:31:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:26:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet-electron/security/advisories/GHSA-x4h8-fhrp-pm3p"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-25019"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet-electron/commit/ca1eb702507fdc4400fe21c905a9f85702f92a14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet-electron/releases/tag/v2.3.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jitsi/security-advisories/blob/master/advisories/JSA-2020-0001.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/225799"
}
],
"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-GQRH-WGMR-MM7V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-20 15:31 – Updated: 2024-08-20 21:30The fetch() API and navigation incorrectly shared the same cache, as the cache key did not include the optional headers fetch() may contain. Under the correct circumstances, an attacker may have been able to poison the local browser cache by priming it with a fetch() response controlled by the additional headers. Upon navigation to the same URL, the user would see the cached response instead of the expected response. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 123.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1554"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-20T14:15:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The `fetch()` API and navigation incorrectly shared the same cache, as the cache key did not include the optional headers `fetch()` may contain. Under the correct circumstances, an attacker may have been able to poison the local browser cache by priming it with a `fetch()` response controlled by the additional headers. Upon navigation to the same URL, the user would see the cached response instead of the expected response. This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 123.",
"id": "GHSA-gqrh-wgmr-mm7v",
"modified": "2024-08-20T21:30:30Z",
"published": "2024-02-20T15:31:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1554"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1816390"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2024-05"
}
],
"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-GQV6-PWCG-87R8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-19 20:47 – Updated: 2026-06-19 20:47Impact
The attacker, with one captured signed SOAP envelope from a victim and no other privileges, can invoke arbitrary operations on the service as the victim principal for the lifetime of the captured signing key. There is no rate limit on replays. The DetectReplays setting on transport-security bindings does not mitigate the issue because the attack does not reuse the original timestamp — the fresh timestamp in the wsse:Security header is what the replay-detection logic inspects.
Patches
Fixed in CoreWCF v1.8.1 and v1.9.1
Workarounds
Ensure communication is protected by SSL/TLS to prevent capturing of signed SOAP envelope.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "CoreWCF.Primitives"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "CoreWCF.Primitives"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.9.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54783"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-294",
"CWE-345",
"CWE-347"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-19T20:47:14Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe attacker, with one captured signed SOAP envelope from a victim and no other privileges, can invoke arbitrary operations on the service as the victim principal for the lifetime of the captured signing key. There is no rate limit on replays. The DetectReplays setting on transport-security bindings does not mitigate the issue because the attack does not reuse the original timestamp \u2014 the fresh timestamp in the wsse:Security header is what the replay-detection logic inspects.\n\n### Patches\nFixed in CoreWCF v1.8.1 and v1.9.1\n\n### Workarounds\nEnsure communication is protected by SSL/TLS to prevent capturing of signed SOAP envelope.",
"id": "GHSA-gqv6-pwcg-87r8",
"modified": "2026-06-19T20:47:14Z",
"published": "2026-06-19T20:47:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/security/advisories/GHSA-gqv6-pwcg-87r8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CoreWCF: XML Signature Wrapping in WS-Security endorsing/supporting signature verification allows replay of captured signed messages"
}
GHSA-GRFX-46MW-P6MW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:16 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:16An issue was discovered on Tata Sonata Smart SF Rush 1.12 devices. It has been identified that the smart band has no pairing (mode 0 Bluetooth LE security level) The data being transmitted over the air is not encrypted. Adding to this, the data being sent to the smart band doesn't have any authentication or signature verification. Thus, any attacker can control a parameter of the device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-11539"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-22T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on Tata Sonata Smart SF Rush 1.12 devices. It has been identified that the smart band has no pairing (mode 0 Bluetooth LE security level) The data being transmitted over the air is not encrypted. Adding to this, the data being sent to the smart band doesn\u0027t have any authentication or signature verification. Thus, any attacker can control a parameter of the device.",
"id": "GHSA-grfx-46mw-p6mw",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:16:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:16:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-11539"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/the-girl-who-lived/CVE-2020-11539"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/@sayliambure/hacking-a-5-smartband-824763ab6e8f"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GVJC-3W7C-92JX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 19:44 – Updated: 2026-07-02 19:44Am I affected
You are affected if:
- You run
zebradup to and includingv4.4.1. - Your node accepts inbound P2P connections and is syncing or catching up to the chain tip.
Summary
A malicious peer can answer Zebra's outbound getblocks/FindBlocks request with a small two-hash inventory, then serve a syntactically valid block whose coinbase height is far above the victim's local tip. The AboveLookaheadHeightLimit error in the sync download pipeline triggers a global sync restart rather than being scoped to the offending peer. The peer is never scored or disconnected because the error type does not carry the advertiser address.
On mainnet, each successful cycle imposes a 67-second sync restart delay. All in-flight downloads from honest peers are cancelled on each restart.
Details
The bug is the interaction of three layers:
-
The syncer promotes unvalidated
FindBlockspeer responses into concrete download schedules without checking that the advertised hashes are plausible chain extensions. -
When a downloaded block's coinbase height exceeds
tip + VERIFICATION_PIPELINE_DROP_LIMIT, the sync downloader returnsBlockDownloadVerifyError::AboveLookaheadHeightLimit. This error variant carries only the block height and hash, not the advertiser peer address. -
The sync error handler in
handle_block_responseonly sends misbehaviour scores forBlockDownloadVerifyError::Invaliderrors that carry anadvertiser_addrand have a nonzeromisbehavior_score().AboveLookaheadHeightLimitfalls through to the default restart-worthy path, cancelling all in-flight downloads and waiting 67 seconds before restarting sync.
The attacker needs only an unauthenticated P2P connection (post-handshake), a tiny payload (one two-hash inv message plus one small block per cycle), and no mining capability, funds, or valid chain data. The peer is never penalised, so the attack is repeatable indefinitely.
Additionally, several other pre-consensus sync-layer errors had zero misbehaviour scores even when peer-attributed. Contextual validation failures (InvalidDifficultyThreshold, TimeTooEarly, TimeTooLate, NonSequentialBlock) and locktime failures from block-serving peers all scored zero, allowing repeated abuse without penalty.
Patches
Patched in Zebra 4.4.2. The fix:
- Carries
advertiser_addrthroughAboveLookaheadHeightLimitandInvalidHeighterror variants. - Makes above-lookahead and invalid-height failures peer-local (the block is dropped and the peer is banned with score 100) rather than triggering a global sync restart.
- Expands
misbehavior_score()acrossBlockError,VerifyBlockError, andCommitBlockErrorto cover contextual validation failures that previously scored zero.
Workarounds
No configuration-level workaround is available. The attack is mitigated by having a diverse honest peer set, but cannot be prevented while the vulnerable code is running.
Impact
A single unauthenticated peer can repeatedly stall a syncing Zebra node by forcing 67-second global sync restart cycles. All unrelated in-flight downloads are cancelled on each restart. The node does not crash and no state is corrupted, but sync progress is significantly degraded for the duration of the attack.
Credit
Reported by @ipwning.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 6.0.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "zebra-consensus"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "7.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.4.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "zebrad"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-52737"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-02T19:44:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Am I affected\n\nYou are affected if:\n\n1. You run `zebrad` up to and including `v4.4.1`.\n2. Your node accepts inbound P2P connections and is syncing or catching up to the chain tip.\n\n### Summary\n\nA malicious peer can answer Zebra\u0027s outbound `getblocks`/`FindBlocks` request with a small two-hash inventory, then serve a syntactically valid block whose coinbase height is far above the victim\u0027s local tip. The `AboveLookaheadHeightLimit` error in the sync download pipeline triggers a global sync restart rather than being scoped to the offending peer. The peer is never scored or disconnected because the error type does not carry the advertiser address.\n\nOn mainnet, each successful cycle imposes a 67-second sync restart delay. All in-flight downloads from honest peers are cancelled on each restart.\n\n### Details\n\nThe bug is the interaction of three layers:\n\n1. The syncer promotes unvalidated `FindBlocks` peer responses into concrete download schedules without checking that the advertised hashes are plausible chain extensions.\n\n2. When a downloaded block\u0027s coinbase height exceeds `tip + VERIFICATION_PIPELINE_DROP_LIMIT`, the sync downloader returns `BlockDownloadVerifyError::AboveLookaheadHeightLimit`. This error variant carries only the block height and hash, not the advertiser peer address.\n\n3. The sync error handler in `handle_block_response` only sends misbehaviour scores for `BlockDownloadVerifyError::Invalid` errors that carry an `advertiser_addr` and have a nonzero `misbehavior_score()`. `AboveLookaheadHeightLimit` falls through to the default restart-worthy path, cancelling all in-flight downloads and waiting 67 seconds before restarting sync.\n\nThe attacker needs only an unauthenticated P2P connection (post-handshake), a tiny payload (one two-hash `inv` message plus one small block per cycle), and no mining capability, funds, or valid chain data. The peer is never penalised, so the attack is repeatable indefinitely.\n\nAdditionally, several other pre-consensus sync-layer errors had zero misbehaviour scores even when peer-attributed. Contextual validation failures (`InvalidDifficultyThreshold`, `TimeTooEarly`, `TimeTooLate`, `NonSequentialBlock`) and locktime failures from block-serving peers all scored zero, allowing repeated abuse without penalty.\n\n### Patches\n\nPatched in Zebra 4.4.2. The fix:\n\n- Carries `advertiser_addr` through `AboveLookaheadHeightLimit` and `InvalidHeight` error variants.\n- Makes above-lookahead and invalid-height failures peer-local (the block is dropped and the peer is banned with score 100) rather than triggering a global sync restart.\n- Expands `misbehavior_score()` across `BlockError`, `VerifyBlockError`, and `CommitBlockError` to cover contextual validation failures that previously scored zero.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nNo configuration-level workaround is available. The attack is mitigated by having a diverse honest peer set, but cannot be prevented while the vulnerable code is running.\n\n### Impact\n\nA single unauthenticated peer can repeatedly stall a syncing Zebra node by forcing 67-second global sync restart cycles. All unrelated in-flight downloads are cancelled on each restart. The node does not crash and no state is corrupted, but sync progress is significantly degraded for the duration of the attack.\n\n### Credit\n\nReported by `@ipwning`.",
"id": "GHSA-gvjc-3w7c-92jx",
"modified": "2026-07-02T19:44:25Z",
"published": "2026-07-02T19:44:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/security/advisories/GHSA-gvjc-3w7c-92jx"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Zebra has sync restart poisoning from single unauthenticated peer via above-lookahead block"
}
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.