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.

944 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-744F-76G7-H835

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:14 – Updated: 2022-08-03 00:00
VLAI
Details

An arbitrary file download and execution vulnerability was found in the HShell.dll of handysoft Co., Ltd groupware ActiveX module. This issue is due to missing support for integrity check of download URL or downloaded file hash.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-26608"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-09-09T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "An arbitrary file download and execution vulnerability was found in the HShell.dll of handysoft Co., Ltd groupware ActiveX module. This issue is due to missing support for integrity check of download URL or downloaded file hash.",
  "id": "GHSA-744f-76g7-h835",
  "modified": "2022-08-03T00:00:56Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:14:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-26608"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.boho.or.kr/krcert/secNoticeView.do?bulletin_writing_sequence=36239"
    }
  ],
  "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-74QH-M79M-W8R7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-14 18:31 – Updated: 2024-05-14 18:31
VLAI
Details

An insufficient verification of data authenticity vulnerability [CWE-345] in Fortinet FortiOS SSL-VPN tunnel mode version 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, version 7.2.0 through 7.2.7 and before 7.0.12 & FortiProxy SSL-VPN tunnel mode version 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, version 7.2.0 through 7.2.7 and before 7.0.13 allows an authenticated VPN user to send (but not receive) packets spoofing the IP of another user via crafted network packets.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-45586"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-14T17:15:24Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "An insufficient verification of data authenticity vulnerability [CWE-345] in Fortinet FortiOS SSL-VPN tunnel mode version 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, version 7.2.0 through 7.2.7 and before 7.0.12 \u0026 FortiProxy SSL-VPN tunnel mode version 7.4.0 through 7.4.1, version 7.2.0 through 7.2.7 and before 7.0.13 allows an authenticated VPN user to send (but not receive) packets spoofing the IP of another user via crafted network packets.",
  "id": "GHSA-74qh-m79m-w8r7",
  "modified": "2024-05-14T18:31:02Z",
  "published": "2024-05-14T18:31:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45586"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-225"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-74WF-CR9V-5294

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:16 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:16
VLAI
Details

A CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability exists which could allow the attacker to execute malicious code on the Modicon M218, M241, M251, and M258 controllers.

Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-7487"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2020-04-22T19:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability exists which could allow the attacker to execute malicious code on the Modicon M218, M241, M251, and M258 controllers.",
  "id": "GHSA-74wf-cr9v-5294",
  "modified": "2022-05-24T17:16:11Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:16:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-7487"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.se.com/ww/en/download/document/SEVD-2020-105-02"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-7527-8855-9CF8

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-26 00:03 – Updated: 2024-09-25 20:02
VLAI
Summary
Incorrect header handling in mod-wsgi
Details

A vulnerability was found in mod_wsgi. The X-Client-IP header is not removed from a request from an untrusted proxy, allowing an attacker to pass the X-Client-IP header to the target WSGI application because the condition to remove it is missing.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
8.7 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "mod-wsgi"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.9.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-2255"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-08-30T20:55:04Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-08-25T18:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability was found in mod_wsgi. The X-Client-IP header is not removed from a request from an untrusted proxy, allowing an attacker to pass the X-Client-IP header to the target WSGI application because the condition to remove it is missing.",
  "id": "GHSA-7527-8855-9cf8",
  "modified": "2024-09-25T20:02:55Z",
  "published": "2022-08-26T00:03:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2255"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/GrahamDumpleton/mod_wsgi/commit/af3c0c2736bc0b0b01fa0f0aad3c904b7fa9c751"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/GrahamDumpleton/mod_wsgi"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/GrahamDumpleton/mod_wsgi/blob/4.9.2/src/server/mod_wsgi.c#L13940-L13941"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/GrahamDumpleton/mod_wsgi/blob/4.9.2/src/server/mod_wsgi.c#L14046-L14082"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/mod-wsgi/PYSEC-2022-254.yaml"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/09/msg00021.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://modwsgi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/release-notes/version-4.9.3.html"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Incorrect header handling in mod-wsgi"
}

GHSA-752W-5FWX-JX9F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 20:05 – Updated: 2026-06-08 19:06
VLAI
Summary
PyJWT accepts unknown `crit` header extensions
Details

Summary

PyJWT does not validate the crit (Critical) Header Parameter defined in RFC 7515 §4.1.11. When a JWS token contains a crit array listing extensions that PyJWT does not understand, the library accepts the token instead of rejecting it. This violates the MUST requirement in the RFC.

This is the same class of vulnerability as CVE-2025-59420 (Authlib), which received CVSS 7.5 (HIGH).

RFC Requirement

RFC 7515 §4.1.11:

The "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter indicates that extensions to this specification and/or [JWA] are being used that MUST be understood and processed. [...] If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are not understood and supported by the recipient, then the JWS is invalid.

Proof of Concept

import jwt  # PyJWT 2.8.0
import hmac, hashlib, base64, json

# Construct token with unknown critical extension
header = {"alg": "HS256", "crit": ["x-custom-policy"], "x-custom-policy": "require-mfa"}
payload = {"sub": "attacker", "role": "admin"}

def b64url(data):
    return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(data).rstrip(b"=").decode()

h = b64url(json.dumps(header, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
p = b64url(json.dumps(payload, separators=(",", ":")).encode())
sig = b64url(hmac.new(b"secret", f"{h}.{p}".encode(), hashlib.sha256).digest())
token = f"{h}.{p}.{sig}"

# Should REJECT — x-custom-policy is not understood by PyJWT
try:
    result = jwt.decode(token, "secret", algorithms=["HS256"])
    print(f"ACCEPTED: {result}")
    # Output: ACCEPTED: {'sub': 'attacker', 'role': 'admin'}
except Exception as e:
    print(f"REJECTED: {e}")

Expected: jwt.exceptions.InvalidTokenError: Unsupported critical extension: x-custom-policy Actual: Token accepted, payload returned.

Comparison with RFC-compliant library

# jwcrypto — correctly rejects
from jwcrypto import jwt as jw_jwt, jwk
key = jwk.JWK(kty="oct", k=b64url(b"secret"))
jw_jwt.JWT(jwt=token, key=key, algs=["HS256"])
# raises: InvalidJWSObject('Unknown critical header: "x-custom-policy"')

Impact

  • Split-brain verification in mixed-library deployments (e.g., API gateway using jwcrypto rejects, backend using PyJWT accepts)
  • Security policy bypass when crit carries enforcement semantics (MFA, token binding, scope restrictions)
  • Token binding bypass — RFC 7800 cnf (Proof-of-Possession) can be silently ignored
  • See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis

Suggested Fix

In jwt/api_jwt.py, add validation in _validate_headers() or decode():

_SUPPORTED_CRIT = {"b64"}  # Add extensions PyJWT actually supports

def _validate_crit(self, headers: dict) -> None:
    crit = headers.get("crit")
    if crit is None:
        return
    if not isinstance(crit, list) or len(crit) == 0:
        raise InvalidTokenError("crit must be a non-empty array")
    for ext in crit:
        if ext not in self._SUPPORTED_CRIT:
            raise InvalidTokenError(f"Unsupported critical extension: {ext}")
        if ext not in headers:
            raise InvalidTokenError(f"Critical extension {ext} not in header")

CWE

  • CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
  • CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization

References

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.11.0"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "PyJWT"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.12.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-32597"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345",
      "CWE-863"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-13T20:05:04Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-13T19:55:09Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nPyJWT does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter defined in\nRFC 7515 \u00a74.1.11. When a JWS token contains a `crit` array listing\nextensions that PyJWT does not understand, the library accepts the token\ninstead of rejecting it. This violates the **MUST** requirement in the RFC.\n\nThis is the same class of vulnerability as CVE-2025-59420 (Authlib),\nwhich received CVSS 7.5 (HIGH).\n\n---\n\n## RFC Requirement\n\nRFC 7515 \u00a74.1.11:\n\n\u003e The \"crit\" (Critical) Header Parameter indicates that extensions to this\n\u003e specification and/or [JWA] are being used that **MUST** be understood and\n\u003e processed. [...] If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are\n\u003e **not understood and supported** by the recipient, then the **JWS is invalid**.\n\n---\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```python\nimport jwt  # PyJWT 2.8.0\nimport hmac, hashlib, base64, json\n\n# Construct token with unknown critical extension\nheader = {\"alg\": \"HS256\", \"crit\": [\"x-custom-policy\"], \"x-custom-policy\": \"require-mfa\"}\npayload = {\"sub\": \"attacker\", \"role\": \"admin\"}\n\ndef b64url(data):\n    return base64.urlsafe_b64encode(data).rstrip(b\"=\").decode()\n\nh = b64url(json.dumps(header, separators=(\",\", \":\")).encode())\np = b64url(json.dumps(payload, separators=(\",\", \":\")).encode())\nsig = b64url(hmac.new(b\"secret\", f\"{h}.{p}\".encode(), hashlib.sha256).digest())\ntoken = f\"{h}.{p}.{sig}\"\n\n# Should REJECT \u2014 x-custom-policy is not understood by PyJWT\ntry:\n    result = jwt.decode(token, \"secret\", algorithms=[\"HS256\"])\n    print(f\"ACCEPTED: {result}\")\n    # Output: ACCEPTED: {\u0027sub\u0027: \u0027attacker\u0027, \u0027role\u0027: \u0027admin\u0027}\nexcept Exception as e:\n    print(f\"REJECTED: {e}\")\n```\n\n**Expected:** `jwt.exceptions.InvalidTokenError: Unsupported critical extension: x-custom-policy`\n**Actual:** Token accepted, payload returned.\n\n### Comparison with RFC-compliant library\n\n```python\n# jwcrypto \u2014 correctly rejects\nfrom jwcrypto import jwt as jw_jwt, jwk\nkey = jwk.JWK(kty=\"oct\", k=b64url(b\"secret\"))\njw_jwt.JWT(jwt=token, key=key, algs=[\"HS256\"])\n# raises: InvalidJWSObject(\u0027Unknown critical header: \"x-custom-policy\"\u0027)\n```\n\n---\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Split-brain verification** in mixed-library deployments (e.g., API\n  gateway using jwcrypto rejects, backend using PyJWT accepts)\n- **Security policy bypass** when `crit` carries enforcement semantics\n  (MFA, token binding, scope restrictions)\n- **Token binding bypass** \u2014 RFC 7800 `cnf` (Proof-of-Possession) can be\n  silently ignored\n- See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis\n\n---\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nIn `jwt/api_jwt.py`, add validation in `_validate_headers()` or\n`decode()`:\n\n```python\n_SUPPORTED_CRIT = {\"b64\"}  # Add extensions PyJWT actually supports\n\ndef _validate_crit(self, headers: dict) -\u003e None:\n    crit = headers.get(\"crit\")\n    if crit is None:\n        return\n    if not isinstance(crit, list) or len(crit) == 0:\n        raise InvalidTokenError(\"crit must be a non-empty array\")\n    for ext in crit:\n        if ext not in self._SUPPORTED_CRIT:\n            raise InvalidTokenError(f\"Unsupported critical extension: {ext}\")\n        if ext not in headers:\n            raise InvalidTokenError(f\"Critical extension {ext} not in header\")\n```\n\n---\n\n## CWE\n\n- CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity\n- CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization\n\n## References\n\n- [RFC 7515 \u00a74.1.11](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515.html#section-4.1.11)\n- [CVE-2025-59420 \u2014 Authlib crit bypass (CVSS 7.5)](https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-9ggr-2464-2j32)\n- [RFC 7800 \u2014 Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7800)",
  "id": "GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f",
  "modified": "2026-06-08T19:06:39Z",
  "published": "2026-03-13T20:05:04Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt/security/advisories/GHSA-752w-5fwx-jx9f"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32597"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jpadilla/pyjwt"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/pyjwt/PYSEC-2026-120.yaml"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2026/05/msg00008.html"
    }
  ],
  "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": "PyJWT accepts unknown `crit` header extensions"
}

GHSA-75MC-5WVP-R4QM

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-30 12:33 – Updated: 2026-04-30 12:33
VLAI
Details

The Five Star Restaurant Reservations plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to a payment bypass via PHP type juggling in versions up to, and including, 2.7.16 This is due to the valid_payment() function using a PHP loose comparison (==) between the attacker-controlled payment_id POST parameter and the booking's stripe_payment_intent_id property. When an unauthenticated attacker submits a request to the nopriv AJAX handler rtb_stripe_pmt_succeed before the Stripe payment intent has been created for a booking (i.e., before the JavaScript-triggered create_stripe_pmtIntnt() call has stored an intent ID in post meta), the stripe_payment_intent_id property on the booking object remains null. The comparison sanitize_text_field('') == null evaluates to TRUE in PHP loose comparison, causing the payment verification check to pass with zero actual payment. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to mark any existing payment_pending booking as paid without completing a Stripe payment by submitting an empty payment_id parameter.

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-2026-6498"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-04-30T10:16:02Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The Five Star Restaurant Reservations plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to a payment bypass via PHP type juggling in versions up to, and including, 2.7.16 This is due to the valid_payment() function using a PHP loose comparison (==) between the attacker-controlled payment_id POST parameter and the booking\u0027s stripe_payment_intent_id property. When an unauthenticated attacker submits a request to the nopriv AJAX handler rtb_stripe_pmt_succeed before the Stripe payment intent has been created for a booking (i.e., before the JavaScript-triggered create_stripe_pmtIntnt() call has stored an intent ID in post meta), the stripe_payment_intent_id property on the booking object remains null. The comparison sanitize_text_field(\u0027\u0027) == null evaluates to TRUE in PHP loose comparison, causing the payment verification check to pass with zero actual payment. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to mark any existing payment_pending booking as paid without completing a Stripe payment by submitting an empty payment_id parameter.",
  "id": "GHSA-75mc-5wvp-r4qm",
  "modified": "2026-04-30T12:33:12Z",
  "published": "2026-04-30T12:33:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-6498"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/restaurant-reservations/tags/2.7.13/includes/PaymentGatewayStripe.class.php#L404"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/restaurant-reservations/tags/2.7.13/includes/PaymentGatewayStripe.class.php#L458"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/restaurant-reservations/trunk/includes/PaymentGatewayStripe.class.php#L404"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/restaurant-reservations/trunk/includes/PaymentGatewayStripe.class.php#L458"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3518833/restaurant-reservations/trunk/includes/PaymentGatewayStripe.class.php"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=%2Frestaurant-reservations/tags/2.7.16\u0026new_path=%2Frestaurant-reservations/tags/2.7.17"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8ee08aac-7bcc-4809-a5aa-7b95ed736f19?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-77H8-XR85-3X5Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:36 – Updated: 2023-01-27 00:52
VLAI
Summary
hammer_cli_foreman Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability
Details

Hammer CLI, a CLI utility for Foreman, before version 0.10.0, did not explicitly set the verify_ssl flag for apipie-bindings that disable it by default. As a result the server certificates are not checked and connections are prone to man-in-the-middle attacks.

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "RubyGems",
        "name": "hammer_cli_foreman"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.10.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-2667"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-295",
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-27T00:52:31Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2018-03-12T15:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Hammer CLI, a CLI utility for Foreman, before version 0.10.0, did not explicitly set the verify_ssl flag for apipie-bindings that disable it by default. As a result the server certificates are not checked and connections are prone to man-in-the-middle attacks.",
  "id": "GHSA-77h8-xr85-3x5q",
  "modified": "2023-01-27T00:52:31Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:36:51Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-2667"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2018:0336"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436262"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/hammer_cli_foreman/CVE-2017-2667.yml"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/theforeman/hammer-cli-foreman"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20200227181720/http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/97153"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/19033"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/97153"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "hammer_cli_foreman Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability"
}

GHSA-77PM-GXX7-5C5F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-10-12 12:00
VLAI
Details

A flaw was found in RPM's signature check functionality when reading a package file. This flaw allows an attacker who can convince a victim to install a seemingly verifiable package, whose signature header was modified, to cause RPM database corruption and execute code. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity, confidentiality, and system availability.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-20271"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-03-26T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A flaw was found in RPM\u0027s signature check functionality when reading a package file. This flaw allows an attacker who can convince a victim to install a seemingly verifiable package, whose signature header was modified, to cause RPM database corruption and execute code. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to data integrity, confidentiality, and system availability.",
  "id": "GHSA-77pm-gxx7-5c5f",
  "modified": "2022-10-12T12:00:21Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:45:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-20271"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/d6a86b5e69e46cc283b1e06c92343319beb42e21"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.starwindsoftware.com/security/sw-20220805-0002"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202107-43"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YILPBTPSBRYL4POBI3F4YUSVPSOQNJBY"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VHRPNBCRPDJHHQE3MBPSZK4H7X2IM7AC"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TMGXO3W6DHPO62GJ4VVF5DEUX5DRUR5K"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YILPBTPSBRYL4POBI3F4YUSVPSOQNJBY"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VHRPNBCRPDJHHQE3MBPSZK4H7X2IM7AC"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TMGXO3W6DHPO62GJ4VVF5DEUX5DRUR5K"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934125"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2021-20271"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:4975"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:4785"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:4771"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:2791"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:2574"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2021:2854"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-77Q5-RR5V-X43Q

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 17:22 – Updated: 2026-07-02 17:22
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaw: Trusted retry endpoint checks could match hostname prefixes
Details

Summary

Trusted retry endpoint checks could match hostname prefixes. In affected versions, a retry endpoint URL chosen by lower-trust input could pass validation by using a hostname prefix that resembled a trusted host.

This advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw's trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.

Impact

When the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could send authentication material to an endpoint outside the intended trust target. Practical impact depends on the operator's configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.

Patched Versions

The first stable patched version is 2026.5.7.

Mitigations

pin retry endpoints to exact trusted origins until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.

Severity
7.1 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "openclaw"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2026.5.7"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-1023",
      "CWE-20",
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-02T17:22:11Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nTrusted retry endpoint checks could match hostname prefixes. In affected versions, a retry endpoint URL chosen by lower-trust input could pass validation by using a hostname prefix that resembled a trusted host.\n\nThis advisory is scoped to the named feature and configuration. It does not change OpenClaw\u0027s trusted-operator model: authenticated Gateway operators, installed plugins, and intentional local execution surfaces remain trusted unless a separate policy, approval, allowlist, sandbox, or auth boundary is crossed.\n\n### Impact\n\nWhen the affected feature is enabled and reachable, this could send authentication material to an endpoint outside the intended trust target. Practical impact depends on the operator\u0027s configuration and whether lower-trust input can reach that path.\n\n### Patched Versions\n\nThe first stable patched version is `2026.5.7`.\n\n### Mitigations\n\npin retry endpoints to exact trusted origins until patched. As general hardening, keep channel and tool allowlists narrow, avoid sharing one Gateway between mutually untrusted users, and disable the affected feature when it is not needed.",
  "id": "GHSA-77q5-rr5v-x43q",
  "modified": "2026-07-02T17:22:11Z",
  "published": "2026-07-02T17:22:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-77q5-rr5v-x43q"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaw: Trusted retry endpoint checks could match hostname prefixes"
}

GHSA-789H-4F4Q-2GQ6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-12 18:32 – Updated: 2026-06-12 18:32
VLAI
Details

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in Remote Control for Zoom Contact Center for Windows before version 7.0.0 may allow an authenticated user to enable an escalation of privilege via local access.

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

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-53406"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-345"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-12T18:16:35Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in Remote Control for Zoom Contact Center for Windows before version 7.0.0 may allow an authenticated user to enable an escalation of privilege via local access.",
  "id": "GHSA-789h-4f4q-2gq6",
  "modified": "2026-06-12T18:32:00Z",
  "published": "2026-06-12T18:32:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53406"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/security-bulletin/zsb-26009"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

No mitigation information available for this CWE.

CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)

An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.

CAPEC-141: Cache Poisoning

An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value.

CAPEC-142: DNS Cache Poisoning

A domain name server translates a domain name (such as www.example.com) into an IP address that Internet hosts use to contact Internet resources. An adversary modifies a public DNS cache to cause certain names to resolve to incorrect addresses that the adversary specifies. The result is that client applications that rely upon the targeted cache for domain name resolution will be directed not to the actual address of the specified domain name but to some other address. Adversaries can use this to herd clients to sites that install malware on the victim's computer or to masquerade as part of a Pharming attack.

CAPEC-148: Content Spoofing

An adversary modifies content to make it contain something other than what the original content producer intended while keeping the apparent source of the content unchanged. The term content spoofing is most often used to describe modification of web pages hosted by a target to display the adversary's content instead of the owner's content. However, any content can be spoofed, including the content of email messages, file transfers, or the content of other network communication protocols. Content can be modified at the source (e.g. modifying the source file for a web page) or in transit (e.g. intercepting and modifying a message between the sender and recipient). Usually, the adversary will attempt to hide the fact that the content has been modified, but in some cases, such as with web site defacement, this is not necessary. Content Spoofing can lead to malware exposure, financial fraud (if the content governs financial transactions), privacy violations, and other unwanted outcomes.

CAPEC-218: Spoofing of UDDI/ebXML Messages

An attacker spoofs a UDDI, ebXML, or similar message in order to impersonate a service provider in an e-business transaction. UDDI, ebXML, and similar standards are used to identify businesses in e-business transactions. Among other things, they identify a particular participant, WSDL information for SOAP transactions, and supported communication protocols, including security protocols. By spoofing one of these messages an attacker could impersonate a legitimate business in a transaction or could manipulate the protocols used between a client and business. This could result in disclosure of sensitive information, loss of message integrity, or even financial fraud.

CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle

An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.

CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation

An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.

CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping

An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.

CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content

An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.

CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking

An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.

CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws

An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.

CAPEC-701: Browser in the Middle (BiTM)

An adversary exploits the inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to establish an unnoticed remote desktop connection in the victim's browser to the adversary's system. The adversary must deploy a web client with a remote desktop session that the victim can access.

← Back to the CWE list