Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-345

Discouraged

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft

API response cwe.mitre.org

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

948 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-5MQQ-GCV3-GMVF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:32 – Updated: 2022-10-07 18:15
VLAI
Details

An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x allowing x86 guest OS users to cause a denial of service (data corruption), cause a data leak, or possibly gain privileges because an AMD IOMMU page-table entry can be half-updated.

Severity
7.8 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-27670"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2020-10-22T21:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An issue was discovered in Xen through 4.14.x allowing x86 guest OS users to cause a denial of service (data corruption), cause a data leak, or possibly gain privileges because an AMD IOMMU page-table entry can be half-updated.",
  "id": "GHSA-5mqq-gcv3-gmvf",
  "modified": "2022-10-07T18:15:45Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:32:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-27670"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XIK57QJOVOPWH6RFRNMGOBCROBCKMDG2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202011-06"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2020/dsa-4804"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-347.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-10/msg00075.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-11/msg00025.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/01/19/9"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-347.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-5MR2-XG52-9G99

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-03 03:30 – Updated: 2024-05-03 03:30
VLAI
Details

NETGEAR RAX30 lighttpd Misconfiguration Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of NETGEAR RAX30. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.

The specific flaw exists within the configuration of the lighttpd HTTP server. The issue results from allowing execution of files from untrusted sources. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-19398.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-27360"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345",
      "CWE-346"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-03T02:15:14Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "NETGEAR RAX30 lighttpd Misconfiguration Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of NETGEAR RAX30. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the configuration of the lighttpd HTTP server. The issue results from allowing execution of files from untrusted sources. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-19398.",
  "id": "GHSA-5mr2-xg52-9g99",
  "modified": "2024-05-03T03:30:49Z",
  "published": "2024-05-03T03:30:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27360"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://kb.netgear.com/000065559/Security-Advisory-for-Multiple-Vulnerabilities-on-the-RAX30-PSV-2022-0352"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-496"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-5MWJ-V5JW-5C97

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-08 15:04 – Updated: 2026-04-09 14:28
VLAI
Summary
LobeHub: Unauthenticated authentication bypass on `webapi` routes via forgeable `X-lobe-chat-auth` header
Details

Summary

The webapi authentication layer trusts a client-controlled X-lobe-chat-auth header that is only XOR-obfuscated, not signed or otherwise authenticated. Because the XOR key is hardcoded in the repository, an attacker can forge arbitrary auth payloads and bypass authentication on protected webapi routes.

Affected routes include: - POST /webapi/chat/[provider] - GET /webapi/models/[provider] - POST /webapi/models/[provider]/pull - POST /webapi/create-image/comfyui

Details

The frontend creates X-lobe-chat-auth by XOR-obfuscating JSON with the static key LobeHub · LobeHub, and the backend reverses that operation and treats the decoded JSON as trusted authentication data.

The backend then accepts any truthy apiKey field in that decoded payload as sufficient authentication. No real API key validation is performed in this path.

As a result, an unauthenticated attacker can forge payloads such as:

{"apiKey":"x"}

or

{"userId":"victim-user-123","apiKey":"x"}

and access webapi routes as an authenticated user.

Confirmed PoC The following forged header was generated directly from the published XOR key using payload {"apiKey":"x"}:

X-lobe-chat-auth: N00DFSE+B1ngjQI0TR8=

That header decodes server-side to:

{"apiKey":"x"}

A simple request is:

curl 'https://TARGET/webapi/models/openai' \ -H 'X-lobe-chat-auth: N00DFSE+B1ngjQI0TR8='

If the deployment has OPENAI_API_KEY configured, the request should succeed without a real login and return the provider model list.

A forged impersonation payload also works conceptually:

{"userId":"victim-user-123","apiKey":"x"}

Impact

This is an unauthenticated authentication bypass.

An attacker can:

  1. access protected webapi routes without a valid session
  2. spend the deployment's server-side model provider credentials when env keys like OPENAI_API_KEY are configured
  3. impersonate another user's userId for routes that load per-user provider configuration
  4. invoke privileged backend model operations such as chat, model listing, model pulls, and ComfyUI image generation

Root Cause

The core issue is trusting unsigned client-supplied auth data:

  1. the auth header is only obfuscated, not authenticated
  2. the obfuscation key is hardcoded and recoverable from the repository
  3. the decoded apiKey field is treated as sufficient authentication even though it is never validated in this code path
  4. Suggested Remediation
  5. Stop treating X-lobe-chat-auth as an authentication token.
  6. Remove the apiKey truthiness check as an auth decision.
  7. Require a real server-validated session, OIDC token, or validated API key for all protected webapi routes.
  8. If a client payload is still needed, sign it server-side with an HMAC or replace it with a normal session-bound backend lookup.
  9. Affected Products

Ecosystem: npm

Package name: @lobehub/lobehub Affected versions: <= 2.1.47 Patched versions: 2.1.48

Severity Moderate Vector String CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

Weaknesses CWE-287: Improper Authentication CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

Severity
5.0 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.1.47"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@lobehub/lobehub"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.1.48"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-39411"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-287",
      "CWE-290",
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-08T15:04:30Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-08T20:16:25Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "# Summary\n\nThe `webapi` authentication layer trusts a client-controlled `X-lobe-chat-auth` header that is only XOR-obfuscated, not signed or otherwise authenticated. Because the XOR key is hardcoded in the repository, an attacker can forge arbitrary auth payloads and bypass authentication on protected `webapi` routes.\n\nAffected routes include:\n- `POST /webapi/chat/[provider]`\n- `GET /webapi/models/[provider]`\n- `POST /webapi/models/[provider]/pull`\n- `POST /webapi/create-image/comfyui`\n\n## Details\n\nThe frontend creates `X-lobe-chat-auth` by XOR-obfuscating JSON with the static key `LobeHub \u00b7 LobeHub`, and the backend reverses that operation and treats the decoded JSON as trusted authentication data.\n\nThe backend then accepts any truthy `apiKey` field in that decoded payload as sufficient authentication. No real API key validation is performed in this path.\n\nAs a result, an unauthenticated attacker can forge payloads such as:\n\n```json\n{\"apiKey\":\"x\"} \n```\n\nor \n\n``` {\"userId\":\"victim-user-123\",\"apiKey\":\"x\"} ```\n\nand access webapi routes as an authenticated user.\n\nConfirmed PoC\nThe following forged header was generated directly from the published XOR key using payload {\"apiKey\":\"x\"}:\n\n\n``` X-lobe-chat-auth: N00DFSE+B1ngjQI0TR8= ```\n\nThat header decodes server-side to:\n\n``` {\"apiKey\":\"x\"}```\n\nA simple request is:\n\n``` curl \u0027https://TARGET/webapi/models/openai\u0027 \\\n  -H \u0027X-lobe-chat-auth: N00DFSE+B1ngjQI0TR8=\u0027 ``` \n\nIf the deployment has OPENAI_API_KEY configured, the request should succeed without a real login and return the provider model list.\n\nA forged impersonation payload also works conceptually:\n\n``` {\"userId\":\"victim-user-123\",\"apiKey\":\"x\"} ``` \n\n### Impact\nThis is an unauthenticated authentication bypass.\n\nAn attacker can:\n\n1. access protected webapi routes without a valid session\n2. spend the deployment\u0027s server-side model provider credentials when env keys like OPENAI_API_KEY are configured\n3. impersonate another user\u0027s userId for routes that load per-user provider configuration\n4. invoke privileged backend model operations such as chat, model listing, model pulls, and ComfyUI image generation\n\n### Root Cause\nThe core issue is trusting unsigned client-supplied auth data:\n\n1. the auth header is only obfuscated, not authenticated\n2. the obfuscation key is hardcoded and recoverable from the repository\n3. the decoded apiKey field is treated as sufficient authentication even though it is never validated in this code path\n4. Suggested Remediation\n5. Stop treating X-lobe-chat-auth as an authentication token.\n6. Remove the apiKey truthiness check as an auth decision.\n7. Require a real server-validated session, OIDC token, or validated API key for all protected webapi routes.\n8. If a client payload is still needed, sign it server-side with an HMAC or replace it with a normal session-bound backend lookup.\n9. Affected Products\n\nEcosystem: npm\n\nPackage name: @lobehub/lobehub\nAffected versions: \u003c= 2.1.47\nPatched versions: 2.1.48\n\nSeverity\nModerate\nVector String\nCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L\n\nWeaknesses\nCWE-287: Improper Authentication\nCWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity\nCWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing",
  "id": "GHSA-5mwj-v5jw-5c97",
  "modified": "2026-04-09T14:28:56Z",
  "published": "2026-04-08T15:04:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/lobehub/lobehub/security/advisories/GHSA-5mwj-v5jw-5c97"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39411"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/lobehub/lobehub/pull/13535"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/lobehub/lobehub/commit/3327b293d66c013f076cbc16cdbd05a61a3d0428"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/lobehub/lobehub"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/lobehub/lobehub/releases/tag/v2.1.48"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "LobeHub: Unauthenticated authentication bypass on `webapi` routes via forgeable `X-lobe-chat-auth` header"
}

GHSA-5PC3-X247-JXCH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:06 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:06
VLAI
Details

Through complicated navigations with new windows, an HTTP page could have inherited a secure lock icon from an HTTPS page. This vulnerability affects Firefox ESR < 78.10, Thunderbird < 78.10, and Firefox < 88.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-23998"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-06-24T14:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Through complicated navigations with new windows, an HTTP page could have inherited a secure lock icon from an HTTPS page. This vulnerability affects Firefox ESR \u003c 78.10, Thunderbird \u003c 78.10, and Firefox \u003c 88.",
  "id": "GHSA-5pc3-x247-jxch",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T19:06:11Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:06:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-23998"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1667456"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2021-14"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2021-15"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2021-16"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-5PVG-856G-CP85

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-08 23:02 – Updated: 2026-07-10 12:31
VLAI
Summary
Netty has Insufficient Bailiwick Validation for NS Records
Details

Summary

Netty's DnsResolveContext insufficiently validates the bailiwick of NS records, enabling DNS Cache Poisoning. An attacker controlling an authoritative name server for a subdomain can poison the cache for parent domains (like .co.uk).

Details

In io.netty.resolver.dns.DnsResolveContext.AuthoritativeNameServerList#add method accepts any NS record from the AUTHORITY section as long as the record's name is a suffix of the questionName.

This means if the resolver queries evil.co.uk., it will accept an NS record claiming authority over co.uk.. Subsequently, the handleWithAdditional method caches the associated A records from the ADDITIONAL section directly into the authoritativeDnsServerCache under the parent domain's key (co.uk.). This bypasses standard bailiwick rules, where a server authoritative for a subdomain should not be trusted to provide authoritative records for its parent. The poisoned cache is then used for all future resolutions under co.uk..

The io.netty.resolver.dns.DnsResolveContext.AuthoritativeNameServerList#cache method only prevents caching if the record is for the root zone (dots == 1).

Impact

DNS Cache Poisoning. Any application using Netty's DNS resolver is impacted.

Severity
8.7 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.2.14.Final"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "io.netty:netty-resolver-dns"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "4.2.0.Final"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.2.15.Final"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.1.134.Final"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "io.netty:netty-resolver-dns"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.1.135.Final"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-47691"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345",
      "CWE-346"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-08T23:02:48Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-12T16:16:30Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\nNetty\u0027s `DnsResolveContext` insufficiently validates the bailiwick of NS records, enabling DNS Cache Poisoning. An attacker controlling an authoritative name server for a subdomain can poison the cache for parent domains (like `.co.uk`).\n\n### Details\nIn `io.netty.resolver.dns.DnsResolveContext.AuthoritativeNameServerList#add` method accepts any NS record from the AUTHORITY section as long as the record\u0027s name is a suffix of the questionName.\n\nThis means if the resolver queries evil.co.uk., it will accept an NS record claiming authority over co.uk.. Subsequently, the `handleWithAdditional` method caches the associated A records from the ADDITIONAL section directly into the `authoritativeDnsServerCache` under the parent domain\u0027s key (co.uk.). This bypasses standard bailiwick rules, where a server authoritative for a subdomain should not be trusted to provide authoritative records for its parent. The poisoned cache is then used for all future resolutions under co.uk..\n\nThe `io.netty.resolver.dns.DnsResolveContext.AuthoritativeNameServerList#cache` method only prevents caching if the record is for the root zone (dots == 1).\n\n### Impact\nDNS Cache Poisoning. Any application using Netty\u0027s DNS resolver is impacted.",
  "id": "GHSA-5pvg-856g-cp85",
  "modified": "2026-07-10T12:31:39Z",
  "published": "2026-06-08T23:02:48Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/netty/netty/security/advisories/GHSA-5pvg-856g-cp85"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-47691"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26017"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26018"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:26586"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:34608"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:37390"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-47691"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2488439"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/netty/netty"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/netty/netty/releases/tag/netty-4.1.135.Final"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/netty/netty/releases/tag/netty-4.2.15.Final"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-47691.json"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Netty has Insufficient Bailiwick Validation for NS Records"
}

GHSA-5RCQ-25VC-G8QR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-24 06:30 – Updated: 2024-06-15 09:30
VLAI
Details

sendmail through at least 8.14.7 allows SMTP smuggling in certain configurations. Remote attackers can use a published exploitation technique to inject e-mail messages that appear to originate from the sendmail server, allowing bypass of an SPF protection mechanism. This occurs because sendmail supports . but some other popular e-mail servers do not.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-51765"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-12-24T06:15:07Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "sendmail through at least 8.14.7 allows SMTP smuggling in certain configurations. Remote attackers can use a published exploitation technique to inject e-mail messages that appear to originate from the sendmail server, allowing bypass of an SPF protection mechanism. This occurs because sendmail supports \u003cLF\u003e.\u003cCR\u003e\u003cLF\u003e but some other popular e-mail servers do not.",
  "id": "GHSA-5rcq-25vc-g8qr",
  "modified": "2024-06-15T09:30:35Z",
  "published": "2023-12-24T06:30:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-51765"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/commit/5dd76dd0cc19450133aa379ce0ce4a68ae07fb39#diff-afdf514b32ac88004952c11660c57bc96c3d8b2234007c1cbd8d7ed7fd7935cc"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2023-51765"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255869"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218351"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2023/fahrplan/events/11782.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/06/msg00004.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lwn.net/Articles/956533"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://sec-consult.com/blog/detail/smtp-smuggling-spoofing-e-mails-worldwide"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/21/7"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/22/7"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8KPV96g1To"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/24/1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/25/1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/26/5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/29/5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/30/1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/30/3"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-5RR4-8452-HF4V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-07 20:56 – Updated: 2026-07-07 20:56
VLAI
Summary
@better-auth/sso provider registration has server-side request forgery via unvalidated OIDC endpoints
Details

Am I affected?

Users are affected if all of the following are true:

  • Their application uses @better-auth/sso at a version >= 0.1.0, < 1.6.11 on the stable line, or any 1.7.0-beta.x on the pre-release line.
  • The sso() plugin is added to their application's betterAuth({ plugins: [...] }) array.
  • Any user with a valid Better Auth session can reach POST /sso/register (the plugin's default gate accepts any session).

For the non-blind SSRF impact (full IAM credential or internal HTTP body exfiltration), no further configuration is required.

For the account takeover escalation, additionally:

  • Developers set sso({ trustEmailVerified: true, ... }).
  • The developer's application deployment has accounts whose email overlaps with attacker-chosen domains.

If developers do not enable the SSO plugin, their application is not affected.

Fix:

  1. Upgrade to @better-auth/sso@1.6.11 or later.
  2. If developers cannot upgrade, see workarounds below.

Summary

The @better-auth/sso plugin's POST /sso/register endpoint accepts attacker-controlled oidcConfig.userInfoEndpoint, tokenEndpoint, and jwksEndpoint URLs when skipDiscovery: true is set, persists them on the ssoProvider row without origin validation, then issues server-side fetches to those URLs during the OIDC callback. The fetched response body is reflected through the user profile, producing a non-blind SSRF reachable by any authenticated session. The same primitive exists on POST /sso/update-provider.

Details

The schema field types accept bare strings: no .url() validator, no origin gate. The discovery branch (skipDiscovery: false) routes URLs through validateDiscoveryUrl; the skip-discovery branch persists them as-is. At callback time three fetch sites read the stored URLs: validateAuthorizationCode for the token endpoint, betterFetch for the userInfo endpoint, and validateToken for the JWKS endpoint.

When trustEmailVerified: true is configured, the attacker can escalate to account linking. A malicious userInfo response with emailVerified: true and a chosen email triggers OAuth auto-link against any pre-existing user row with that email, compounding the SSRF into account takeover.

Patches

Fixed in @better-auth/sso@1.6.11. Provider registration (POST /sso/register with skipDiscovery: true) and every POST /sso/update-provider request now validate each supplied OIDC endpoint URL (authorizationEndpoint, tokenEndpoint, userInfoEndpoint, jwksEndpoint, discoveryEndpoint) at registration time. A URL is rejected unless it satisfies one of two conditions:

  1. Its host is publicly routable on the internet, evaluated through the @better-auth/core/utils/host.isPublicRoutableHost gate. RFC 1918 private ranges, RFC 4193 unique-local addresses, link-local addresses (including the cloud-metadata IP 169.254.169.254), loopback, multicast, broadcast, and reserved ranges are rejected, along with cloud-metadata FQDNs.
  2. Its origin is already listed in the application's trustedOrigins configuration. This preserves the documented escape hatch for customers running internal IdPs intentionally on private networks.

The schema also tightens from z.string() to z.url() on those fields, so malformed URLs fail at parse time rather than at fetch time. Deployments running internal IdPs that previously worked must add the IdP's origin to trustedOrigins to keep working after upgrade.

Workarounds

If developers cannot upgrade immediately:

  • Disable provider self-registration: set sso({ providersLimit: 0 }). The limit is enforced before the schema branch, blocking every /sso/register regardless of skipDiscovery.
  • Reverse-proxy gate: block POST /sso/register and POST /sso/update-provider at the edge, or restrict to a denylist of source IPs and a small admin user list.
  • Network-level egress controls: block egress from the auth server to RFC 1918, RFC 4193, link-local ranges (169.254.0.0/16, fe80::/10), and the cloud-metadata FQDN list at the firewall or VPC level. AWS users should additionally enforce IMDSv2 (HttpTokens: required).
  • Set trustEmailVerified: false until upgrade. This caps the impact at non-blind SSRF and removes the account-takeover escalation, but does not stop the SSRF.

Impact

  • Server-Side Request Forgery (non-blind): the attacker reads response bodies from any HTTP endpoint reachable from the auth server, including cloud metadata services (AWS IMDS, GCP metadata FQDN), internal-only APIs, and infrastructure services such as Redis or admin panels bound to localhost.
  • Account takeover (when trustEmailVerified: true): the attacker mints a malicious userInfo response asserting emailVerified: true for an arbitrary email, triggering OAuth auto-link against pre-existing user rows.

Credit

Reported by Vaadata.

Resources

Severity
9.6 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@better-auth/sso"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.1.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.6.11"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-53513"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-20",
      "CWE-345",
      "CWE-441",
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-07T20:56:19Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "### Am I affected?\n\nUsers are affected if all of the following are true:\n\n- Their application uses `@better-auth/sso` at a version `\u003e= 0.1.0, \u003c 1.6.11` on the stable line, or any `1.7.0-beta.x` on the pre-release line.\n- The `sso()` plugin is added to their application\u0027s `betterAuth({ plugins: [...] })` array.\n- Any user with a valid Better Auth session can reach `POST /sso/register` (the plugin\u0027s default gate accepts any session).\n\nFor the non-blind SSRF impact (full IAM credential or internal HTTP body exfiltration), no further configuration is required.\n\nFor the account takeover escalation, additionally:\n\n- Developers set `sso({ trustEmailVerified: true, ... })`.\n- The developer\u0027s application deployment has accounts whose `email` overlaps with attacker-chosen domains.\n\nIf developers do not enable the SSO plugin, their application is not affected.\n\nFix:\n\n1. Upgrade to `@better-auth/sso@1.6.11` or later.\n2. If developers cannot upgrade, see workarounds below.\n\n### Summary\n\nThe `@better-auth/sso` plugin\u0027s `POST /sso/register` endpoint accepts attacker-controlled `oidcConfig.userInfoEndpoint`, `tokenEndpoint`, and `jwksEndpoint` URLs when `skipDiscovery: true` is set, persists them on the `ssoProvider` row without origin validation, then issues server-side fetches to those URLs during the OIDC callback. The fetched response body is reflected through the user profile, producing a non-blind SSRF reachable by any authenticated session. The same primitive exists on `POST /sso/update-provider`.\n\n### Details\n\nThe schema field types accept bare strings: no `.url()` validator, no origin gate. The discovery branch (`skipDiscovery: false`) routes URLs through `validateDiscoveryUrl`; the skip-discovery branch persists them as-is. At callback time three fetch sites read the stored URLs: `validateAuthorizationCode` for the token endpoint, `betterFetch` for the userInfo endpoint, and `validateToken` for the JWKS endpoint.\n\nWhen `trustEmailVerified: true` is configured, the attacker can escalate to account linking. A malicious userInfo response with `emailVerified: true` and a chosen `email` triggers OAuth auto-link against any pre-existing user row with that email, compounding the SSRF into account takeover.\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in `@better-auth/sso@1.6.11`. Provider registration (`POST /sso/register` with `skipDiscovery: true`) and every `POST /sso/update-provider` request now validate each supplied OIDC endpoint URL (`authorizationEndpoint`, `tokenEndpoint`, `userInfoEndpoint`, `jwksEndpoint`, `discoveryEndpoint`) at registration time. A URL is rejected unless it satisfies one of two conditions:\n\n1. Its host is publicly routable on the internet, evaluated through the `@better-auth/core/utils/host.isPublicRoutableHost` gate. RFC 1918 private ranges, RFC 4193 unique-local addresses, link-local addresses (including the cloud-metadata IP `169.254.169.254`), loopback, multicast, broadcast, and reserved ranges are rejected, along with cloud-metadata FQDNs.\n2. Its origin is already listed in the application\u0027s `trustedOrigins` configuration. This preserves the documented escape hatch for customers running internal IdPs intentionally on private networks.\n\nThe schema also tightens from `z.string()` to `z.url()` on those fields, so malformed URLs fail at parse time rather than at fetch time. Deployments running internal IdPs that previously worked must add the IdP\u0027s origin to `trustedOrigins` to keep working after upgrade.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf developers cannot upgrade immediately:\n\n- **Disable provider self-registration**: set `sso({ providersLimit: 0 })`. The limit is enforced before the schema branch, blocking every `/sso/register` regardless of `skipDiscovery`.\n- **Reverse-proxy gate**: block `POST /sso/register` and `POST /sso/update-provider` at the edge, or restrict to a denylist of source IPs and a small admin user list.\n- **Network-level egress controls**: block egress from the auth server to RFC 1918, RFC 4193, link-local ranges (`169.254.0.0/16`, `fe80::/10`), and the cloud-metadata FQDN list at the firewall or VPC level. AWS users should additionally enforce IMDSv2 (`HttpTokens: required`).\n- **Set `trustEmailVerified: false`** until upgrade. This caps the impact at non-blind SSRF and removes the account-takeover escalation, but does not stop the SSRF.\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Server-Side Request Forgery (non-blind)**: the attacker reads response bodies from any HTTP endpoint reachable from the auth server, including cloud metadata services (AWS IMDS, GCP metadata FQDN), internal-only APIs, and infrastructure services such as Redis or admin panels bound to localhost.\n- **Account takeover** (when `trustEmailVerified: true`): the attacker mints a malicious userInfo response asserting `emailVerified: true` for an arbitrary email, triggering OAuth auto-link against pre-existing user rows.\n\n### Credit\n\nReported by Vaadata.\n\n### Resources\n\n- [CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/918.html)\n- [CWE-20: Improper Input Validation](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/20.html)\n- [CWE-441: Unintended Proxy or Intermediary](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/441.html)\n- [CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/345.html)",
  "id": "GHSA-5rr4-8452-hf4v",
  "modified": "2026-07-07T20:56:19Z",
  "published": "2026-07-07T20:56:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-5rr4-8452-hf4v"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/releases/tag/v1.6.11"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "@better-auth/sso provider registration has server-side request forgery via unvalidated OIDC endpoints"
}

GHSA-5V9Q-JPV7-7W2M

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-10 09:31 – Updated: 2025-03-12 12:30
VLAI
Details

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in GE Vernova UR IED family devices allows an authenticated user to install a modified firmware. The firmware signature verification is enforced only on the client-side dedicated software Enervista UR Setup, allowing the integration check to be bypassed.

Severity
6.1 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-27257"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-10T09:15:11Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in GE Vernova UR IED family devices allows an authenticated user to install a modified firmware.\nThe firmware signature verification is enforced only on the client-side dedicated software Enervista UR Setup, allowing the integration check to be bypassed.",
  "id": "GHSA-5v9q-jpv7-7w2m",
  "modified": "2025-03-12T12:30:57Z",
  "published": "2025-03-10T09:31:49Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27257"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.gevernova.com/grid-solutions/app/DownloadFile.aspx?prod=urfamily\u0026type=21\u0026file=76"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.nozominetworks.com/labs/vulnerability-advisories-cve-2025-27257"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-5VPH-83M8-9635

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-06 00:31 – Updated: 2026-06-06 00:31
VLAI
Details

The Event Monster – Event Management, Events Calendar, Tickets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in versions up to, and including, 2.1.0. This is due to the capture_payment() AJAX handler (registered via wp_ajax_nopriv_em_capture_payment) trusting client-supplied payment data — including transaction ID, amount, and payment status — without performing any server-side verification against the PayPal API or any other payment gateway, and without nonce or capability checks. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge payment records, mark bookings as Completed, and obtain confirmation emails containing valid QR code tickets without making any actual payment.

Severity
5.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-8608"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-06T00:16:41Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The Event Monster \u2013 Event Management, Events Calendar, Tickets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in versions up to, and including, 2.1.0. This is due to the capture_payment() AJAX handler (registered via wp_ajax_nopriv_em_capture_payment) trusting client-supplied payment data \u2014 including transaction ID, amount, and payment status \u2014 without performing any server-side verification against the PayPal API or any other payment gateway, and without nonce or capability checks. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge payment records, mark bookings as Completed, and obtain confirmation emails containing valid QR code tickets without making any actual payment.",
  "id": "GHSA-5vph-83m8-9635",
  "modified": "2026-06-06T00:31:39Z",
  "published": "2026-06-06T00:31:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8608"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/event-monster/tags/2.0.1/includes/class-event-monster-ajax.php#L844"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/event-monster/tags/2.0.1/includes/class-event-monster-ajax.php#L890"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/event-monster/tags/2.0.1/includes/class-event-monster-ajax.php#L92"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3554570%40event-monster\u0026new=3554570%40event-monster\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/daddfbd2-cff4-4caa-bbdc-9945a635a1d6?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-5W76-5RQ6-44V8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:47 – Updated: 2022-05-24 16:47
VLAI
Details

Due to unencrypted and unauthenticated data communication, the wireless presenter Inateck WP2002 is prone to keystroke injection attacks. Thus, an attacker is able to send arbitrary keystrokes to a victim's computer system, e.g., to install malware when the target system is unattended. In this way, an attacker can remotely take control over the victim's computer that is operated with an affected receiver of this device.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-12504"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-06-07T21:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Due to unencrypted and unauthenticated data communication, the wireless presenter Inateck WP2002 is prone to keystroke injection attacks. Thus, an attacker is able to send arbitrary keystrokes to a victim\u0027s computer system, e.g., to install malware when the target system is unattended. In this way, an attacker can remotely take control over the victim\u0027s computer that is operated with an affected receiver of this device.",
  "id": "GHSA-5w76-5rq6-44v8",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T16:47:36Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T16:47:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-12504"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Jun/3"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.syss.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Publikationen/Advisories/SYSS-2019-008.txt"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/153185/Inateck-2.4-GHz-Wearable-Wireless-Presenter-WP2002-Keystroke-Injection.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Jun/14"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

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.

← Back to the CWE list