CWE-345
DiscouragedInsufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
939 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FFQJ-6RQC-8HR7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-09 21:30 – Updated: 2023-02-21 21:30Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in Routine prior to versions 2.6.30.6 in Android Q(10), 3.1.21.10 in Android R(11) and 3.5.2.23 in Android S(12) allows local attacker to access protected files via unused code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-21441"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-09T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in Routine prior to versions 2.6.30.6 in Android Q(10), 3.1.21.10 in Android R(11) and 3.5.2.23 in Android S(12) allows local attacker to access protected files via unused code.",
"id": "GHSA-ffqj-6rqc-8hr7",
"modified": "2023-02-21T21:30:19Z",
"published": "2023-02-09T21:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-21441"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.samsungmobile.com/serviceWeb.smsb?year=2023\u0026month=02"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FHVM-J76F-QMJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 21:34 – Updated: 2026-03-06 00:58Summary
When Telegram webhook mode is enabled without a configured webhook secret, OpenClaw may accept unauthenticated HTTP POST requests at the Telegram webhook endpoint and trust attacker-controlled update JSON. This can allow forged Telegram updates that spoof message.from.id / chat.id, potentially bypassing sender allowlists and executing privileged bot commands.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected:
<= 2026.1.30 - Patched:
>= 2026.2.1
Impact
An attacker who can reach the webhook endpoint can forge Telegram updates and impersonate allowlisted/paired senders by spoofing fields in the webhook payload (for example message.from.id). Impact depends on enabled commands/tools and the deployment’s network exposure.
Mitigations / Workarounds
- Configure a strong
channels.telegram.webhookSecretand ensure your reverse proxy forwards theX-Telegram-Bot-Api-Secret-Tokenheader unchanged.
Fix Commit(s)
- ca92597e1f9593236ad86810b66633144b69314d (config validation:
webhookUrlrequireswebhookSecret)
Defense-in-depth / supporting fixes:
- 5643a934799dc523ec2ef18c007e1aa2c386b670 (default webhook listener bind host to loopback)
- 3cbcba10cf30c2ffb898f0d8c7dfb929f15f8930 (bound webhook request body size/time)
- 633fe8b9c17f02fcc68ecdb5ec212a5ace932f09 (runtime guard: reject webhook startup when secret is missing/empty)
Release Process Note
patched_versions is set to the first fixed release (2026.2.1).
Thanks @yueyueL for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28454"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-285",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T21:34:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-05T22:16:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nWhen Telegram webhook mode is enabled without a configured webhook secret, OpenClaw may accept unauthenticated HTTP POST requests at the Telegram webhook endpoint and trust attacker-controlled update JSON. This can allow forged Telegram updates that spoof `message.from.id` / `chat.id`, potentially bypassing sender allowlists and executing privileged bot commands.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected: `\u003c= 2026.1.30`\n- Patched: `\u003e= 2026.2.1`\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker who can reach the webhook endpoint can forge Telegram updates and impersonate allowlisted/paired senders by spoofing fields in the webhook payload (for example `message.from.id`). Impact depends on enabled commands/tools and the deployment\u2019s network exposure.\n\n## Mitigations / Workarounds\n\n- Configure a strong `channels.telegram.webhookSecret` and ensure your reverse proxy forwards the `X-Telegram-Bot-Api-Secret-Token` header unchanged.\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n\n- ca92597e1f9593236ad86810b66633144b69314d (config validation: `webhookUrl` requires `webhookSecret`)\n\nDefense-in-depth / supporting fixes:\n\n- 5643a934799dc523ec2ef18c007e1aa2c386b670 (default webhook listener bind host to loopback)\n- 3cbcba10cf30c2ffb898f0d8c7dfb929f15f8930 (bound webhook request body size/time)\n- 633fe8b9c17f02fcc68ecdb5ec212a5ace932f09 (runtime guard: reject webhook startup when secret is missing/empty)\n\n## Release Process Note\n\n`patched_versions` is set to the first fixed release (`2026.2.1`).\n\nThanks @yueyueL for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-fhvm-j76f-qmjv",
"modified": "2026-03-06T00:58:46Z",
"published": "2026-02-17T21:34:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-fhvm-j76f-qmjv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28454"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/3cbcba10cf30c2ffb898f0d8c7dfb929f15f8930"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/5643a934799dc523ec2ef18c007e1aa2c386b670"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/633fe8b9c17f02fcc68ecdb5ec212a5ace932f09"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/ca92597e1f9593236ad86810b66633144b69314d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-authorization-bypass-via-unauthenticated-telegram-webhook"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw has a potential access-group authorization bypass if channel type lookup fails"
}
GHSA-FMH4-WCC4-5JM3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-07 20:54 – Updated: 2026-07-07 20:54Am I affected?
Users are affected if all of the following are true:
- Their application uses
better-authwith theorganizationplugin (import { organization } from "better-auth/plugins/organization"). - Their application enables a sign-up surface that allows arbitrary unverified email registration. Most commonly
emailAndPassword: { enabled: true }withoutrequireEmailVerification: true. - Their application has not set
requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: trueon theorganization()options. - Their application invitation distribution flow allows anyone other than the invited mailbox owner to obtain the
invitationId. Examples: admin UI surfacing the link, copy-paste into chat, forwarded email, mail-forwarding rules at the recipient's domain, link previews logging the URL, or a customsendInvitationEmailintegration that sends to a non-owner channel.
If their application set emailAndPassword: { enabled: true, requireEmailVerification: true } so unverified rows cannot reach a usable session, they are not affected. Setting requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true closes acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation, but getInvitation and listUserInvitations remain ungated even with that flag.
Fix:
- Upgrade to
better-auth@1.6.11or later. - If developers cannot upgrade their application, see workarounds below.
Summary
The organization plugin's acceptInvitation endpoint trusts an email-string equality check as proof that the session user owns the invited address. With Better Auth's stock emailAndPassword: { enabled: true } configuration, requireEmailVerification defaults to false, so an attacker can sign up a row keyed to victim@target.example (auto-signed-in, emailVerified: false) before the legitimate owner. When an organization admin invites that address, the attacker presents the invitationId and accepts the invitation, joining the organization at the invited role.
Details
The recipient gate compares invitation.email.toLowerCase() to session.user.email.toLowerCase() and returns 403 on mismatch. The opt-in requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation flag adds an emailVerified check, but it defaults to false and only fires on acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation; getInvitation and listUserInvitations have no emailVerified gate at all.
The bearer token (invitationId) is by default 32 chars over [a-zA-Z0-9] (~190 bits), so the realistic attack vector is leakage of the invitation link rather than brute force.
The fix shape defaults the emailVerified gate to on and extends it across all four invitation endpoints (acceptInvitation, rejectInvitation, getInvitation, listUserInvitations). This is the same trust-primitive class as GHSA-g38m-r43w-p2q7 (OAuth auto-link); both ship the rule "email equality is not ownership proof; both sides must prove ownership".
Patches
Fixed in better-auth@1.6.11. All four invitation recipient endpoints (acceptInvitation, rejectInvitation, getInvitation, listUserInvitations) now require the session user's emailVerified to be true in addition to the email-string match. The requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation option default flips from false to true, so applications are secure out of the box.
getInvitation and listUserInvitations use the new EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED_FOR_INVITATION error code so the wording matches the operation; acceptInvitation and rejectInvitation keep the existing EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED_BEFORE_ACCEPTING_OR_REJECTING_INVITATION code. Server-side calls to listUserInvitations that pass ctx.query.email without an authenticated session continue to bypass the gate; the gate is specific to session-authenticated recipient calls.
Integrators who intentionally accept invitations on unverified sessions can preserve the legacy permissive behavior with organization({ requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: false }). The option is marked @deprecated; the gate at each call site carries a FIXME pointing at the next-minor follow-up that drops the option and makes the check unconditional. Operators that take this opt-out should understand the takeover risk before doing so.
Workarounds
If developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:
- Set
organization({ requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true }). ClosesacceptInvitationandrejectInvitationagainst unverified sessions. Does not closegetInvitationorlistUserInvitations. - Set
emailAndPassword.requireEmailVerification: true(or remove email/password sign-up entirely). Closes the pre-registration step itself. - Layer middleware on the organization invitation routes that asserts
session.user.emailVerified === trueand rejects otherwise.
Impact
- Account takeover via pre-account hijacking on the org invitation surface: the attacker, holding only an unverified self-issued session and the leaked
invitationId, joins the organization as a member at the invited role. - Organization membership reach: the attacker reads invitation contents and any organization-scoped data the joined role can see, and acts as a member of the victim organization.
Credit
Reported by @widavies.
Resources
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "better-auth"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.11"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-53514"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-345",
"CWE-441",
"CWE-862"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-07T20:54:51Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Am I affected?\n\nUsers are affected if all of the following are true:\n\n- Their application uses `better-auth` with the `organization` plugin (`import { organization } from \"better-auth/plugins/organization\"`).\n- Their application enables a sign-up surface that allows arbitrary unverified email registration. Most commonly `emailAndPassword: { enabled: true }` without `requireEmailVerification: true`.\n- Their application has not set `requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true` on the `organization()` options.\n- Their application invitation distribution flow allows anyone other than the invited mailbox owner to obtain the `invitationId`. Examples: admin UI surfacing the link, copy-paste into chat, forwarded email, mail-forwarding rules at the recipient\u0027s domain, link previews logging the URL, or a custom `sendInvitationEmail` integration that sends to a non-owner channel.\n\nIf their application set `emailAndPassword: { enabled: true, requireEmailVerification: true }` so unverified rows cannot reach a usable session, they are not affected. Setting `requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true` closes `acceptInvitation` and `rejectInvitation`, but `getInvitation` and `listUserInvitations` remain ungated even with that flag.\n\nFix:\n\n1. Upgrade to `better-auth@1.6.11` or later.\n2. If developers cannot upgrade their application, see workarounds below.\n\n### Summary\n\nThe organization plugin\u0027s `acceptInvitation` endpoint trusts an email-string equality check as proof that the session user owns the invited address. With Better Auth\u0027s stock `emailAndPassword: { enabled: true }` configuration, `requireEmailVerification` defaults to `false`, so an attacker can sign up a row keyed to `victim@target.example` (auto-signed-in, `emailVerified: false`) before the legitimate owner. When an organization admin invites that address, the attacker presents the `invitationId` and accepts the invitation, joining the organization at the invited role.\n\n### Details\n\nThe recipient gate compares `invitation.email.toLowerCase()` to `session.user.email.toLowerCase()` and returns 403 on mismatch. The opt-in `requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation` flag adds an `emailVerified` check, but it defaults to `false` and only fires on `acceptInvitation` and `rejectInvitation`; `getInvitation` and `listUserInvitations` have no `emailVerified` gate at all.\n\nThe bearer token (`invitationId`) is by default 32 chars over `[a-zA-Z0-9]` (~190 bits), so the realistic attack vector is leakage of the invitation link rather than brute force.\n\nThe fix shape defaults the `emailVerified` gate to on and extends it across all four invitation endpoints (`acceptInvitation`, `rejectInvitation`, `getInvitation`, `listUserInvitations`). This is the same trust-primitive class as GHSA-g38m-r43w-p2q7 (OAuth auto-link); both ship the rule \"email equality is not ownership proof; both sides must prove ownership\".\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in `better-auth@1.6.11`. All four invitation recipient endpoints (`acceptInvitation`, `rejectInvitation`, `getInvitation`, `listUserInvitations`) now require the session user\u0027s `emailVerified` to be `true` in addition to the email-string match. The `requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation` option default flips from `false` to `true`, so applications are secure out of the box.\n\n`getInvitation` and `listUserInvitations` use the new `EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED_FOR_INVITATION` error code so the wording matches the operation; `acceptInvitation` and `rejectInvitation` keep the existing `EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED_BEFORE_ACCEPTING_OR_REJECTING_INVITATION` code. Server-side calls to `listUserInvitations` that pass `ctx.query.email` without an authenticated session continue to bypass the gate; the gate is specific to session-authenticated recipient calls.\n\nIntegrators who intentionally accept invitations on unverified sessions can preserve the legacy permissive behavior with `organization({ requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: false })`. The option is marked `@deprecated`; the gate at each call site carries a `FIXME` pointing at the next-minor follow-up that drops the option and makes the check unconditional. Operators that take this opt-out should understand the takeover risk before doing so.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf developers cannot upgrade their applications immediately:\n\n- **Set `organization({ requireEmailVerificationOnInvitation: true })`**. Closes `acceptInvitation` and `rejectInvitation` against unverified sessions. Does not close `getInvitation` or `listUserInvitations`.\n- **Set `emailAndPassword.requireEmailVerification: true`** (or remove email/password sign-up entirely). Closes the pre-registration step itself.\n- **Layer middleware** on the organization invitation routes that asserts `session.user.emailVerified === true` and rejects otherwise.\n\n### Impact\n\n- **Account takeover via pre-account hijacking on the org invitation surface**: the attacker, holding only an unverified self-issued session and the leaked `invitationId`, joins the organization as a member at the invited role.\n- **Organization membership reach**: the attacker reads invitation contents and any organization-scoped data the joined role can see, and acts as a member of the victim organization.\n\n### Credit\n\nReported by @widavies.\n\n### Resources\n\n- [CWE-287: Improper Authentication](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/287.html)\n- [CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/345.html)\n- [CWE-862: Missing Authorization](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/862.html)\n- [CWE-441: Unintended Proxy or Intermediary](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/441.html)",
"id": "GHSA-fmh4-wcc4-5jm3",
"modified": "2026-07-07T20:54:52Z",
"published": "2026-07-07T20:54:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-fmh4-wcc4-5jm3"
},
{
"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:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Better Auth vulnerable to unauthorized invitation acceptance via unverified email match in organization plugin"
}
GHSA-FMQ6-M827-77JC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:57 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:01If a wildcard ('*') is specified for the host in Content Security Policy (CSP) directives, any port or path restriction of the directive will be ignored, leading to CSP directives not being properly applied to content. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 69.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-11737"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-27T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "If a wildcard (\u0027*\u0027) is specified for the host in Content Security Policy (CSP) directives, any port or path restriction of the directive will be ignored, leading to CSP directives not being properly applied to content. This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 69.",
"id": "GHSA-fmq6-m827-77jc",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:01:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:57:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11737"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1388015"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2019-25"
}
],
"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-FMW9-C6HW-79VG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-27 18:31 – Updated: 2025-10-27 18:31A weakness has been identified in D-Link DAP-2695 2.00RC13. The affected element is the function sub_40C6B8 of the component Firmware Update Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack can be launched remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12295"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-347"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-27T17:15:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A weakness has been identified in D-Link DAP-2695 2.00RC13. The affected element is the function sub_40C6B8 of the component Firmware Update Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack can be launched remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.",
"id": "GHSA-fmw9-c6hw-79vg",
"modified": "2025-10-27T18:31:11Z",
"published": "2025-10-27T18:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12295"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/IOTRes/IOT_Firmware_Update/blob/main/Dlink/DAP-2695_Inte.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.329963"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.329963"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.675854"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dlink.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-FP52-QW33-MFMW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-08-02 17:11 – Updated: 2023-08-29 22:39HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise versions 0.7.1 and newer, when configured with the AWS IAM auth method, may be vulnerable to authentication bypass. Fixed in 1.2.5, 1.3.8, 1.4.4, and 1.5.1..
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.1"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.3.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.4.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.5.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-16250"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-290",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-07-26T18:55:09Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-08-26T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise versions 0.7.1 and newer, when configured with the AWS IAM auth method, may be vulnerable to authentication bypass. Fixed in 1.2.5, 1.3.8, 1.4.4, and 1.5.1..",
"id": "GHSA-fp52-qw33-mfmw",
"modified": "2023-08-29T22:39:27Z",
"published": "2021-08-02T17:11:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-16250"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hashicorp/vault/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#151"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/category/vault"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/159478/Hashicorp-Vault-AWS-IAM-Integration-Authentication-Bypass.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Authentication Bypass by Spoofing and Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in Hashicorp Vault"
}
GHSA-FP87-JFRM-4F3F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-03 18:31 – Updated: 2024-12-04 00:31An attacker who can execute arbitrary Operating Systems commands, can bypass code signing enforcements in the kernel, and execute arbitrary native code. This vulnerability has been resolved in firmware version 2.800.0000000.8.R.20241111.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52548"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-03T18:15:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An attacker who can execute arbitrary Operating Systems commands, can bypass code signing enforcements in the kernel, and execute arbitrary native code. This vulnerability has been resolved in firmware version 2.800.0000000.8.R.20241111.",
"id": "GHSA-fp87-jfrm-4f3f",
"modified": "2024-12-04T00:31:31Z",
"published": "2024-12-03T18:31:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52548"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sfewer-r7/LorexExploit"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2024/12/03/lorex-2k-indoor-wi-fi-security-camera-multiple-vulnerabilities-fixed"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FPG8-7664-JC5Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-10 21:43 – Updated: 2026-07-10 21:43Previously, Apko verified the control section hash (.PKGINFO etc.) against the signed APKINDEX, but never verified the data section hash (the actual package files that get installed). An attacker who could compromise a mirror, poison a cache, or MITM a package fetch could substitute arbitrary file contents while the control hash check still passed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "chainguard.dev/apko"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "chainguard.dev/melange"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.50.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54174"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-10T21:43:05Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Previously, Apko verified the control section hash (`.PKGINFO` etc.) against the signed `APKINDEX`, but never verified the data section hash (the actual package files that get installed). An attacker who could compromise a mirror, poison a cache, or MITM a package fetch could substitute arbitrary file contents while the control hash check still passed.",
"id": "GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q",
"modified": "2026-07-10T21:43:05Z",
"published": "2026-07-10T21:43:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/melange/security/advisories/GHSA-fpg8-7664-jc5q"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/melange"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "melange: Incomplete package integrity verification allows data section substitution"
}
GHSA-FQ68-CWCX-P92F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-18 12:31 – Updated: 2026-02-18 12:31The RegistrationMagic – Custom Registration Forms, User Registration, Payment, and User Login plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to payment bypass due to insufficient verification of data authenticity on the 'process_paypal_sdk_payment' function in all versions up to, and including, 6.0.6.9. This is due to the plugin trusting client-supplied values for payment verification without validating that the payment actually went through PayPal. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass paid registration by manipulating payment status and activating their account without completing a real PayPal payment.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-14444"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-18T11:16:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The RegistrationMagic \u2013 Custom Registration Forms, User Registration, Payment, and User Login plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to payment bypass due to insufficient verification of data authenticity on the \u0027process_paypal_sdk_payment\u0027 function in all versions up to, and including, 6.0.6.9. This is due to the plugin trusting client-supplied values for payment verification without validating that the payment actually went through PayPal. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass paid registration by manipulating payment status and activating their account without completing a real PayPal payment.",
"id": "GHSA-fq68-cwcx-p92f",
"modified": "2026-02-18T12:31:11Z",
"published": "2026-02-18T12:31:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14444"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/custom-registration-form-builder-with-submission-manager/tags/6.0.6.7/includes/class_registration_magic.php#L232"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/custom-registration-form-builder-with-submission-manager/tags/6.0.6.7/services/class_rm_paypal_service.php#L324"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/custom-registration-form-builder-with-submission-manager/trunk/services/class_rm_paypal_service.php#L324"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3426151"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/0633bf06-6580-4feb-b98a-c465df3e2bed?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-FQC6-VQQ8-5XWP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-14 09:31 – Updated: 2026-07-14 09:31Eclipse Kura versions prior to 5.6.2 trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For HTTP header as the authoritative source of the client IP address in audit log entries. The org.eclipse.kura.web2 (Web Console) and org.eclipse.kura.rest.provider (REST API) components use this header as the primary IP source when initializing audit context, and org.eclipse.kura.jetty.customizer unconditionally installs Jetty's ForwardedRequestCustomizer on all HTTP/HTTPS connectors, causing HttpServletRequest.getRemoteAddr() to reflect the attacker-controlled header value. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to bypass IP-based brute-force protections — such as fail2ban — by spoofing the logged IP address to a non-routable value, allowing a brute-force attack to proceed undetected, or to cause a denial of service against a third party by injecting a victim's IP address and triggering a ban on that address.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-9561"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-14T09:16:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Eclipse Kura versions prior to 5.6.2 trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For HTTP header as the authoritative source of the client IP address in audit log entries. The org.eclipse.kura.web2 (Web Console) and org.eclipse.kura.rest.provider (REST API) components use this header as the primary IP source when initializing audit context, and org.eclipse.kura.jetty.customizer unconditionally installs Jetty\u0027s ForwardedRequestCustomizer on all HTTP/HTTPS connectors, causing HttpServletRequest.getRemoteAddr() to reflect the attacker-controlled header value. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to bypass IP-based brute-force protections \u2014 such as fail2ban \u2014 by spoofing the logged IP address to a non-routable value, allowing a brute-force attack to proceed undetected, or to cause a denial of service against a third party by injecting a victim\u0027s IP address and triggering a ban on that address.",
"id": "GHSA-fqc6-vqq8-5xwp",
"modified": "2026-07-14T09:31:44Z",
"published": "2026-07-14T09:31:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9561"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.eclipse.org/security/cve-assignment/-/work_items/117"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
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.