VYPR
Get started

CWE-347

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

BaseDraft

Description

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.

Hierarchy (View 1000)

Parents

Children

none

Related attack patterns (CAPEC)

CAPEC-463 · CAPEC-475

CVEs mapped to this weakness (147)

page 3 of 8
CVESevRiskCVSSEPSSKEVPublishedDescription
CVE-2025-55278Hig0.538.10.00Nov 5, 2025Improper 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-2025-54369Cri0.53—0.00Jul 24, 2025Node-SAML is a SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In versions 5.0.1 and below, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. This issue is fixed in version 5.1.0.
CVE-2025-52556Cri0.53—0.00Jun 21, 2025rfc3161-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-2025-27813Hig0.538.10.00Apr 10, 2025MSI Center before 2.0.52.0 has Missing PE Signature Validation.
CVE-2025-29775Cri0.53—0.00Mar 14, 2025xml-crypto is an XML digital signature and encryption library for Node.js. An attacker may be able to exploit a vulnerability in versions prior to 6.0.1, 3.2.1, and 2.1.6 to bypass authentication or authorization mechanisms in systems that rely on xml-crypto for verifying signed XML documents. The vulnerability allows an attacker to modify a valid signed XML message in a way that still passes signature verification checks. For example, it could be used to alter critical identity or access control attributes, enabling an attacker to escalate privileges or impersonate another user. Users of versions 6.0.0 and prior should upgrade to version 6.0.1 to receive a fix. Those who are still using v2.x or v3.x should upgrade to patched versions 2.1.6 or 3.2.1, respectively.
CVE-2025-29774Cri0.53—0.00Mar 14, 2025xml-crypto is an XML digital signature and encryption library for Node.js. An attacker may be able to exploit a vulnerability in versions prior to 6.0.1, 3.2.1, and 2.1.6 to bypass authentication or authorization mechanisms in systems that rely on xml-crypto for verifying signed XML documents. The vulnerability allows an attacker to modify a valid signed XML message in a way that still passes signature verification checks. For example, it could be used to alter critical identity or access control attributes, enabling an attacker with a valid account to escalate privileges or impersonate another user. Users of versions 6.0.0 and prior should upgrade to version 6.0.1 to receive a fix. Those who are still using v2.x or v3.x should upgrade to patched versions 2.1.6 or 3.2.1, respectively.
CVE-2025-24800Cri0.53—0.00Jan 28, 2025Hyperbridge is a hyper-scalable coprocessor for verifiable, cross-chain interoperability. A critical vulnerability was discovered in the ismp-grandpa crate, that allowed a malicious prover easily convince the verifier of the finality of arbitrary headers. This could be used to steal funds or compromise other kinds of cross-chain applications. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.0.1.
CVE-2023-52043Hig0.538.10.00Apr 3, 2024An issue in D-Link COVR 1100, 1102, 1103 AC1200 Dual-Band Whole-Home Mesh Wi-Fi System (Hardware Rev B1) truncates Wireless Access Point Passwords (WPA-PSK) allowing an attacker to gain unauthorized network access via weak authentication controls.
CVE-2017-16853Hig0.538.10.01Nov 16, 2017The DynamicMetadataProvider class in saml/saml2/metadata/impl/DynamicMetadataProvider.cpp in OpenSAML-C in OpenSAML before 2.6.1 fails to properly configure itself with the MetadataFilter plugins and does not perform critical security checks such as signature verification, enforcement of validity periods, and other checks specific to deployments, aka CPPOST-105.
CVE-2017-16852Hig0.538.10.00Nov 16, 2017shibsp/metadata/DynamicMetadataProvider.cpp in the Dynamic MetadataProvider plugin in Shibboleth Service Provider before 2.6.1 fails to properly configure itself with the MetadataFilter plugins and does not perform critical security checks such as signature verification, enforcement of validity periods, and other checks specific to deployments, aka SSPCPP-763.
CVE-2017-6445Hig0.538.10.00Mar 5, 2017The auto-update feature of Open Embedded Linux Entertainment Center (OpenELEC) 6.0.3, 7.0.1, and 8.0.4 uses neither encrypted connections nor signed updates. A man-in-the-middle attacker could manipulate the update packages to gain root access remotely.
CVE-2026-41431Hig0.528.00.00May 11, 2026Zen is a firefox-based browser. Prior to 1.19.9b, Zen Browser ships a Mozilla Application Resource (MAR) updater (org.mozilla.updater) that has had all MAR signature verification stripped from the Firefox codebase it was forked from. The MAR files served to users contain zero cryptographic signatures, and the updater binary contains zero cryptographic verification code. This eliminates the defense-in-depth that MAR signing provides. If the update server or GitHub release pipeline is compromised, arbitrary unsigned code can be delivered to all Zen users via the auto-update mechanism. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.19.9b.
CVE-2024-54150Cri0.529.10.00Dec 19, 2024cjwt 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-2014-9934Hig0.517.80.00May 16, 2017A PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification routine in all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel may not check padding.
CVE-2002-1796Hig0.517.80.00Dec 31, 2002ChaiVM EZloader for HP color LaserJet 4500 and 4550 and HP LaserJet 4100 and 8150 does not properly verify JAR signatures for new services, which allows local users to load unauthorized Chai services.
CVE-2025-47934Hig0.50—0.00May 19, 2025OpenPGP.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-2025-31489Hig0.50—0.02Apr 3, 2025MinIO is a High Performance Object Storage released under GNU Affero General Public License v3.0. The signature component of the authorization may be invalid, which would mean that as a client you can use any arbitrary secret to upload objects given the user already has prior WRITE permissions on the bucket. Prior knowledge of access-key, and bucket name this user might have access to - and an access-key with a WRITE permissions is necessary. However with relevant information in place, uploading random objects to buckets is trivial and easy via curl. This issue is fixed in RELEASE.2025-04-03T14-56-28Z.
CVE-2026-42501Hig0.497.50.00May 7, 2026A malicious module proxy can exploit a flaw in the go command's validation of module checksums to bypass checksum database validation. This vulnerability affects any user using an untrusted module proxy (GOMODPROXY) or checksum database (GOSUMDB). A malicious module proxy can serve altered versions of the Go toolchain. When selecting a different version of the Go toolchain than the currently installed toolchain (due to the GOTOOLCHAIN environment variable, or a go.work or go.mod with a toolchain line), the go command will download and execute a toolchain provided by the module proxy. A malicious module proxy can bypass checksum database validation for this downloaded toolchain. Since this vulnerability affects the security of toolchain downloads, setting GOTOOLCHAIN to a fixed version is not sufficient. You must upgrade your base Go toolchain. The go tool always validates the hash of a toolchain before executing it, so fixed versions will refuse to execute any cached, altered versions of the toolchain. The go tool trusts go.sum files to contain accurate hashes of the current module's dependencies. A malicious proxy exploiting this vulnerability to serve an altered module will have caused an incorrect hash to be recorded in the go.sum. Users who have configured a non-trusted GOPROXY can determine if they have been affected by running "rm go.sum ; go mod tidy ; go mod verify", which will revalidate all dependencies of the current module. The specific flaw in more detail: The go command consults the checksum database to validate downloaded modules, when a module is not listed in the go.sum file. It verifies that the module hash reported by the checksum database matches the hash of the downloaded module. If, however, the checksum database returns a successful response that contains no entry for the module, the go command incorrectly permitted validation to succeed. A module proxy may mirror or proxy the checksum database, in which case the go command will not connect to the checksum database directly. Checksums reported by the checksum database are cryptographically signed, so a malicious proxy cannot alter the reported checksum for a module. However, a proxy which returns an empty checksum response, or a checksum response for an unrelated module, could cause the go command to proceed as if a downloaded module has been validated.
CVE-2026-5050Hig0.497.50.00Apr 16, 2026The Payment Gateway for Redsys & WooCommerce Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature in versions up to, and including, 7.0.0 due to successful_request() handlers calculating a local signature but not validating Ds_Signature from the request before accepting payment status across the Redsys, Bizum, and Google Pay gateway flows. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge payment callback data and mark pending orders as paid when they know a valid order key and order amount, potentially allowing checkout completion and product or service fulfillment without a successful payment.
CVE-2026-33894Hig0.497.50.00Mar 27, 2026Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to version 1.4.0, RSASSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature verification accepts forged signatures for low public exponent keys (e=3). Attackers can forge signatures by stuffing “garbage” bytes within the ASN structure in order to construct a signature that passes verification, enabling Bleichenbacher style forgery. This issue is similar to CVE-2022-24771, but adds bytes in an addition field within the ASN structure, rather than outside of it. Additionally, forge does not validate that signatures include a minimum of 8 bytes of padding as defined by the specification, providing attackers additional space to construct Bleichenbacher forgeries. Version 1.4.0 patches the issue.