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.
933 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-HJVR-GV7J-MRV8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:37 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:37IBM Security Identity Manager Virtual Appliance 7.0 processes patches, image backups and other updates without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code. IBM X-Force ID: 127392.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1405"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-06-08T13:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Security Identity Manager Virtual Appliance 7.0 processes patches, image backups and other updates without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code. IBM X-Force ID: 127392.",
"id": "GHSA-hjvr-gv7j-mrv8",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:37:08Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:37:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1405"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/127392"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22013617"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HJXG-73CP-H6JP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-20 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-25 00:00Emerson Electric's Proficy Machine Edition Version 9.00 and prior is vulenrable to CWE-353 Missing Support for Integrity Check, and has no authentication or authorization of data packets after establishing a connection for the SRTP protocol.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2793"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-353"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-19T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Emerson Electric\u0027s Proficy Machine Edition Version 9.00 and prior is vulenrable to CWE-353 Missing Support for Integrity Check, and has no authentication or authorization of data packets after establishing a connection for the SRTP protocol.",
"id": "GHSA-hjxg-73cp-h6jp",
"modified": "2022-08-25T00:00:28Z",
"published": "2022-08-20T00:00:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2793"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-228-06"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HM46-WQVG-9PP2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-09 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:53In modem, there is a possible missing verification of HashMME value in Security Mode Command. This could local denial of service with no additional execution privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-44420"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-09T02:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In modem, there is a possible missing verification of HashMME value in Security Mode Command. This could local denial of service with no additional execution privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-hm46-wqvg-9pp2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:53:12Z",
"published": "2023-05-09T03:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-44420"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.unisoc.com/en_us/secy/announcementDetail/1654776866982133761"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HM7R-C7QW-GHP6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 22:01 – Updated: 2026-04-06 23:41Summary
fast-jwt 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 fast-jwt does not understand, the library accepts the token instead of rejecting it. This violates the MUST requirement in the RFC.
RFC Requirement
RFC 7515 §4.1.11:
If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are not understood and supported by the recipient, then the JWS is invalid.
Proof of Concept
const { createSigner, createVerifier } = require("fast-jwt"); // v3.3.3
const signer = createSigner({ key: "secret", algorithm: "HS256" });
const token = signer({
sub: "attacker",
role: "admin",
header: { crit: ["x-custom-policy"], "x-custom-policy": "require-mfa" },
});
// Should REJECT — x-custom-policy is not understood
const verifier = createVerifier({ key: "secret", algorithms: ["HS256"] });
try {
const result = verifier(token);
console.log("ACCEPTED:", result);
// Output: ACCEPTED: { sub: 'attacker', role: 'admin' }
} catch (e) {
console.log("REJECTED:", e.message);
}
Expected: Error — unsupported critical extension Actual: Token accepted.
Comparison
// jose (panva) v4+ — correctly rejects
const jose = require("jose");
await jose.jwtVerify(token, new TextEncoder().encode("secret"));
// throws: Extension Header Parameter "x-custom-policy" is not recognized
Impact
- Split-brain verification in mixed-library environments
- Security policy bypass when
critcarries enforcement semantics - Token binding bypass (RFC 7800
cnfconfirmation) - See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis
Suggested Fix
In src/verifier.js, add crit validation after header decoding:
const SUPPORTED_CRIT = new Set(["b64"]);
function validateCrit(header) {
if (!header.crit) return;
if (!Array.isArray(header.crit) || header.crit.length === 0)
throw new Error("crit must be a non-empty array");
for (const ext of header.crit) {
if (!SUPPORTED_CRIT.has(ext))
throw new Error(`Unsupported critical extension: ${ext}`);
if (!(ext in header))
throw new Error(`Critical extension ${ext} not present in header`);
}
}
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "fast-jwt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "6.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-35042"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-636"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-03T22:01:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-06T17:17:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n`fast-jwt` does not validate the `crit` (Critical) Header Parameter defined in RFC 7515 \u00a74.1.11. When a JWS token contains a `crit` array listing extensions that `fast-jwt` does not understand, the library accepts the token instead of rejecting it. This violates the **MUST** requirement in the RFC.\n\n---\n\n## RFC Requirement\n\nRFC 7515 \u00a74.1.11:\n\n\u003e If any of the listed extension Header Parameters are **not understood\n\u003e and supported** by the recipient, then the **JWS is invalid**.\n\n---\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```javascript\nconst { createSigner, createVerifier } = require(\"fast-jwt\"); // v3.3.3\n\nconst signer = createSigner({ key: \"secret\", algorithm: \"HS256\" });\nconst token = signer({\n sub: \"attacker\",\n role: \"admin\",\n header: { crit: [\"x-custom-policy\"], \"x-custom-policy\": \"require-mfa\" },\n});\n\n// Should REJECT \u2014 x-custom-policy is not understood\nconst verifier = createVerifier({ key: \"secret\", algorithms: [\"HS256\"] });\ntry {\n const result = verifier(token);\n console.log(\"ACCEPTED:\", result);\n // Output: ACCEPTED: { sub: \u0027attacker\u0027, role: \u0027admin\u0027 }\n} catch (e) {\n console.log(\"REJECTED:\", e.message);\n}\n```\n\n**Expected:** Error \u2014 unsupported critical extension\n**Actual:** Token accepted.\n\n### Comparison\n\n```javascript\n// jose (panva) v4+ \u2014 correctly rejects\nconst jose = require(\"jose\");\nawait jose.jwtVerify(token, new TextEncoder().encode(\"secret\"));\n// throws: Extension Header Parameter \"x-custom-policy\" is not recognized\n```\n\n---\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Split-brain verification** in mixed-library environments\n- **Security policy bypass** when `crit` carries enforcement semantics\n- **Token binding bypass** (RFC 7800 `cnf` confirmation)\n- See CVE-2025-59420 for full impact analysis\n\n---\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nIn `src/verifier.js`, add crit validation after header decoding:\n\n```javascript\nconst SUPPORTED_CRIT = new Set([\"b64\"]);\n\nfunction validateCrit(header) {\n if (!header.crit) return;\n if (!Array.isArray(header.crit) || header.crit.length === 0)\n throw new Error(\"crit must be a non-empty array\");\n for (const ext of header.crit) {\n if (!SUPPORTED_CRIT.has(ext))\n throw new Error(`Unsupported critical extension: ${ext}`);\n if (!(ext in header))\n throw new Error(`Critical extension ${ext} not present in header`);\n }\n}\n```",
"id": "GHSA-hm7r-c7qw-ghp6",
"modified": "2026-04-06T23:41:50Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T22:01:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nearform/fast-jwt/security/advisories/GHSA-hm7r-c7qw-ghp6"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35042"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-9ggr-2464-2j32"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nearform/fast-jwt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515.html#section-4.1.11"
}
],
"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": "fast-jwt accepts unknown `crit` header extensions (RFC 7515 violation)"
}
GHSA-HQGQ-3R9H-H993
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-03 00:00 – Updated: 2022-11-25 06:30ENC DataVault 7.1.1W uses an inappropriate encryption algorithm, such that an attacker (who does not know the secret key) can make ciphertext modifications that are reflected in modified plaintext. There is no data integrity mechanism. (This behavior occurs across USB drives sold under multiple brand names.)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-36751"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-798"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-02T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "ENC DataVault 7.1.1W uses an inappropriate encryption algorithm, such that an attacker (who does not know the secret key) can make ciphertext modifications that are reflected in modified plaintext. There is no data integrity mechanism. (This behavior occurs across USB drives sold under multiple brand names.)",
"id": "GHSA-hqgq-3r9h-h993",
"modified": "2022-11-25T06:30:22Z",
"published": "2022-01-03T00:00:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-36751"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://encsecurity.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4413283717265-Update-for-ENC-Software"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://encsecurity.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/7860771829533"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pretalx.c3voc.de/rc3-2021-r3s/talk/QMYGR3"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HQMJ-H5C6-369M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-16 16:23 – Updated: 2026-06-08 18:35What's the issue
Passing silent=True to onnx.hub.load() kills all trust warnings and user prompts. This means a model can be downloaded from any unverified GitHub repo with zero user awareness.
if not _verify_repo_ref(repo) and not silent:
# completely skipped when silent=True
print("The model repo... is not trusted")
if input().lower() != "y":
return None
On top of that, the SHA256 integrity check is useless here — it validates against a manifest that lives in the same repo the attacker controls, so the hash will always match.
Impact
Any pipeline using hub.load() with silent=True and an external repo string is silently loading whatever the repo owner ships. If that model executes arbitrary code on load, the attacker has access to the machine.
Resolved by removing the feature
References
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.20.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "onnx"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.21.0rc1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28500"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-494",
"CWE-693"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-16T16:23:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-18T02:16:24Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## What\u0027s the issue\nPassing `silent=True` to `onnx.hub.load()` kills all trust warnings and user prompts. This means a model can be downloaded from any unverified GitHub repo with zero user awareness.\n \n```python\nif not _verify_repo_ref(repo) and not silent:\n # completely skipped when silent=True\n print(\"The model repo... is not trusted\")\n if input().lower() != \"y\":\n return None\n```\n \nOn top of that, the SHA256 integrity check is useless here \u2014 it validates against a manifest that lives in the same repo the attacker controls, so the hash will always match.\n\n \n## Impact\nAny pipeline using `hub.load()` with `silent=True` and an external repo string is silently loading whatever the repo owner ships. If that model executes arbitrary code on load, the attacker has access to the machine.\n \n## Resolved by removing the feature \n## References\n \n- [Write-up](https://github.com/ZeroXJacks/CVEs/blob/main/2026/CVE-2026-28500.md)",
"id": "GHSA-hqmj-h5c6-369m",
"modified": "2026-06-08T18:35:09Z",
"published": "2026-03-16T16:23:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/onnx/onnx/security/advisories/GHSA-hqmj-h5c6-369m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28500"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZeroXJacks/CVEs/blob/main/2026/CVE-2026-28500.md"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/onnx/onnx"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/onnx/PYSEC-2026-103.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "ONNX Untrusted Model Repository Warnings Suppressed by silent=True in onnx.hub.load() \u2014 Silent Supply-Chain Attack"
}
GHSA-HQVV-6648-F492
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:39 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:39There is a improper privilege management vulnerability in some Huawei smartphone. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can cause information disclosure and malfunctions due to insufficient verification of data authenticity.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-9141"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-13T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "There is a improper privilege management vulnerability in some Huawei smartphone. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can cause information disclosure and malfunctions due to insufficient verification of data authenticity.",
"id": "GHSA-hqvv-6648-f492",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:39:00Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:39:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-9141"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2020/12"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-HR3F-J6VX-GRX5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-18 00:00The Emerson ROC and FloBoss RTU product lines through 2022-05-02 perform insecure filesystem operations. They utilize the ROC protocol (4000/TCP, 5000/TCP) for communications between a master terminal and RTUs. Opcode 203 of this protocol allows a master terminal to transfer files to and from the flash filesystem and carrying out arbitrary file and directory read, write, and delete operations.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-30264"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-16T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The Emerson ROC and FloBoss RTU product lines through 2022-05-02 perform insecure filesystem operations. They utilize the ROC protocol (4000/TCP, 5000/TCP) for communications between a master terminal and RTUs. Opcode 203 of this protocol allows a master terminal to transfer files to and from the flash filesystem and carrying out arbitrary file and directory read, write, and delete operations.",
"id": "GHSA-hr3f-j6vx-grx5",
"modified": "2022-08-18T00:00:16Z",
"published": "2022-08-17T00:00:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-30264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-223-04"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.forescout.com/blog"
}
],
"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-HW3C-CW6G-7H26
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-23 00:01 – Updated: 2023-08-08 15:31Certain Starcharge products are affected by Improper Input Validation. The affected products include: Nova 360 Cabinet <= 1.3.0.0.7b102 - Fixed: Beta1.3.0.1.0 and Titan 180 Premium <= 1.3.0.0.6 - Fixed: 1.3.0.0.9.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-45419"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-22T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Certain Starcharge products are affected by Improper Input Validation. The affected products include: Nova 360 Cabinet \u003c= 1.3.0.0.7b102 - Fixed: Beta1.3.0.1.0 and Titan 180 Premium \u003c= 1.3.0.0.6 - Fixed: 1.3.0.0.9.",
"id": "GHSA-hw3c-cw6g-7h26",
"modified": "2023-08-08T15:31:26Z",
"published": "2021-12-23T00:01:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-45419"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/shortmore/trsh/blob/main/starcharge/CVE-2021-45419.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vincss.net"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://starcharge.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HWR4-FPQC-F4WF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-11 00:02 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:02A command injection vulnerability exists in the Xiaomi Router AX3600. The vulnerability is caused by a lack of inspection for incoming data detection. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to execute code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-14111"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-10T17:41:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A command injection vulnerability exists in the Xiaomi Router AX3600. The vulnerability is caused by a lack of inspection for incoming data detection. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to execute code.",
"id": "GHSA-hwr4-fpqc-f4wf",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:02:08Z",
"published": "2022-03-11T00:02:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-14111"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://trust.mi.com/zh-CN/misrc/bulletins/advisory?cveId=18"
}
],
"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.