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.
1222 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8H53-FJGG-G42G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:12 – Updated: 2024-03-04 23:48Async Http Client (aka AHC or async-http-client) before 1.9.0 skips X.509 certificate verification unless both a keyStore location and a trustStore location are explicitly set, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof HTTPS servers by presenting an arbitrary certificate during use of a typical AHC configuration, as demonstrated by a configuration that does not send client certificates.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "com.ning:async-http-client"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-7397"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-07T23:14:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2015-06-24T16:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Async Http Client (aka AHC or async-http-client) before 1.9.0 skips X.509 certificate verification unless both a keyStore location and a trustStore location are explicitly set, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof HTTPS servers by presenting an arbitrary certificate during use of a typical AHC configuration, as demonstrated by a configuration that does not send client certificates.",
"id": "GHSA-8h53-fjgg-g42g",
"modified": "2024-03-04T23:48:01Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:12:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-7397"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client/issues/352"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client/commit/dfacb8e05d0822c7b2024c452554bd8e1d6221d8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff8dcfe29377088ab655fda9d585dccd5b1f07fabd94ae84fd60a7f8@%3Ccommits.pulsar.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd0e44e8ef71eeaaa3cf3d1b8b41eb25894372e2995ec908ce7624d26@%3Ccommits.pulsar.apache.org%3E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/SECURITY/Jenkins+Security+Advisory+2016-06-20"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/08/26/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0850.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0851.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1176.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1551.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in Async Http Client"
}
GHSA-8HGF-W73G-3X6V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-03 09:31 – Updated: 2026-10-03 09:31In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer's integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-85515"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-03T09:17:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, a truncated OpenPGP encrypted message was accepted with no error reported, and on the SEIPD version 1 path with no integrity check performed at all. RFC 9580 sec. 13.7 permits an implementation to release the cleartext of the fully authenticated chunks when streaming but requires it to indicate a clear error as soon as the truncation is detected, and to report suspect integrity when it discovers malleable ciphertext. The truncation was detected and then discarded: when a message is truncated but the length field of the enclosing packet is left unchanged, BCPGInputStream.PartialInputStream raises an EOFException for the missing ciphertext, and BCPGInputStream.nextPacketTag() reports an EOFException as a clean end of message, so the packet stream above it stopped as though no packets remained. On the AEAD path (SEIPD version 2 and the version 5 AEAD packet), when the literal data packet ended on an AEAD chunk boundary and the consumer read in increments smaller than one chunk, the look-ahead for the packet after the literal triggered the truncated chunk read, so BcAEADUtil and JceAEADUtil never reached the trailing message tag of sec. 5.13.2 that authenticates the total plaintext length; the caller received the plaintext of the fully authenticated chunks, every packet following the literal was silently dropped, and no exception was raised, so a signed and encrypted message read back as a well-formed unsigned one. Every byte released on that path remained individually authenticated, making this a missing truncation error rather than a forgery, and it is a residual of CVE-2026-12817, which closed the same outcome for an attacker who corrects the outer packet length. On the SEIPD version 1 path the consequence was more serious: IntegrityProtectedInputStream verifies the modification detection code from close(), and reached close() only by closing itself when a read of it returned -1, which a truncated message never produces, so PGPEncryptedData.verify() never ran and the recipient was handed CFB-decrypted plaintext on which no integrity check of any kind had been performed. Measured on a message truncated into that shape, 136 distinct single-byte modifications of the ciphertext produced accepted, altered plaintext with no exception raised. Reachability is a property of the message rather than of attacker-supplied input: the AEAD shape held for 3 of 131 consecutive payload lengths measured, and the SEIPD version 1 shape for one payload length in sixteen, at a truncation offset that did not move with the payload length. The low-level API is unaffected, a caller that invokes PGPEncryptedData.verify() directly getting the check regardless, as are consumers reading in increments of a whole AEAD chunk or more. The AEAD decryption streams now re-throw such an EOFException as a plain IOException, which nextPacketTag() does not launder; OpenPGPMessageInputStream.close() now closes its layer\u0027s integrity-protected stream itself rather than relying on that stream having seen the end of its data; and IntegrityProtectedInputStream.close() was made idempotent, as java.io.Closeable requires, which that depends on, since the stream is genuinely closed twice on the ordinary path and PGPEncryptedData.verify() consumes the digest state behind it and cannot be run a second time. This issue also affects Bouncy Castle for Java LTS before 2.73.13, on the AEAD route only, as that edition does not ship the high-level OpenPGP API the SEIPDv1 route runs through. It also affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS (BC-FJA) before bcpg-fips 1.0.14 (1.0.X series), 2.0.14.1 (2.0.X series) and 2.1.14 (2.1.X series), on the AEAD route only, as those editions do not ship the high-level OpenPGP API.",
"id": "GHSA-8hgf-w73g-3x6v",
"modified": "2026-10-03T09:31:18Z",
"published": "2026-10-03T09:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-85515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/commit/ab7a235d1c20e3da28ce77167a96b5c14025efa7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/wiki/CVE%E2%80%902026%E2%80%9085515"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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:Amber",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-8P4P-W6MQ-4GRQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-17 12:32 – Updated: 2026-08-17 12:32openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in CamelliaCipher that disables HMAC tag generation and verification when the PYTEST_CURRENT_TEST environment variable is set. Attackers with code execution can set this environment variable to produce unauthenticated ciphertext and bypass integrity protection on encrypted data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-74890"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-17T11:16:43Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "openssl_encrypt versions before 1.4.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in CamelliaCipher that disables HMAC tag generation and verification when the PYTEST_CURRENT_TEST environment variable is set. Attackers with code execution can set this environment variable to produce unauthenticated ciphertext and bypass integrity protection on encrypted data.",
"id": "GHSA-8p4p-w6mq-4grq",
"modified": "2026-08-17T12:32:26Z",
"published": "2026-08-17T12:32:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jahlives/openssl_encrypt/security/advisories/GHSA-rvc2-5jxq-gpcj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-74890"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openssl-encrypt-before-hmac-authentication-bypass-via-environment-variable"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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:H/VI:H/VA:H/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"
}
]
}
GHSA-8P6X-G49R-WJJ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-16 09:30 – Updated: 2026-09-16 09:30The Eventin WordPress plugin before 4.1.24 does not verify that a completed payment corresponds to the order it is applied to, confirming only that the payment gateway reports the transaction as successful, not its amount, currency, or which order it belongs to, allowing unauthenticated visitors to mark unpaid orders of any value as paid by replaying the transaction of a single genuine low-value payment.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-84906"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-16T07:16:37Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Eventin WordPress plugin before 4.1.24 does not verify that a completed payment corresponds to the order it is applied to, confirming only that the payment gateway reports the transaction as successful, not its amount, currency, or which order it belongs to, allowing unauthenticated visitors to mark unpaid orders of any value as paid by replaying the transaction of a single genuine low-value payment.",
"id": "GHSA-8p6x-g49r-wjj7",
"modified": "2026-09-16T09:30:25Z",
"published": "2026-09-16T09:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-84906"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/371e6803-f159-4f80-8b75-a7ec71e6ba4d"
}
],
"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-8P7P-R9XV-W8G4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-21 21:30 – Updated: 2024-08-22 18:31Insufficient data validation in Installer in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 128.0.6613.84 allowed a local attacker to perform privilege escalation via a crafted symbolic link. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-7980"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-21T21:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient data validation in Installer in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 128.0.6613.84 allowed a local attacker to perform privilege escalation via a crafted symbolic link. (Chromium security severity: Medium)",
"id": "GHSA-8p7p-r9xv-w8g4",
"modified": "2024-08-22T18:31:21Z",
"published": "2024-08-21T21:30:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7980"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2024/08/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_21.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/356328460"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8R9F-H969-MM4M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-10 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-10 21:31When calling base64.b64decode() or related functions the decoding process would stop after encountering the first padded quad regardless of whether there was more information to be processed. This can lead to data being accepted which may be processed differently by other implementations. Use "validate=True" to enable stricter processing of base64 data.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3446"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-10T19:16:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "When calling base64.b64decode() or related functions the decoding process would stop after encountering the first padded quad regardless of whether there was more information to be processed. This can lead to data being accepted which may be processed differently by other implementations. Use \"validate=True\" to enable stricter processing of base64 data.",
"id": "GHSA-8r9f-h969-mm4m",
"modified": "2026-04-10T21:31:15Z",
"published": "2026-04-10T21:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3446"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/145264"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/145267"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/1f9958f909c1b41a4ffc0b613ef8ec8fa5e7c474"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/4561f6418a691b3e89aef0901f53fe0dfb7f7c0e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/e31c55121620189a0d1a07b689762d8ca9c1b7fa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mail.python.org/archives/list/security-announce@python.org/thread/F5ZT5ICGJ6CKXVUJ34YBVY7WOZ5SHG53"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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"
}
]
}
GHSA-8RGM-MPW2-PCJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:49 – Updated: 2022-06-29 00:00Insufficient data validation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 90.0.4430.93 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-21231"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-30T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient data validation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 90.0.4430.93 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.",
"id": "GHSA-8rgm-mpw2-pcjv",
"modified": "2022-06-29T00:00:43Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:49:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-21231"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2021/04/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_26.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://crbug.com/1198696"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EAJ42L4JFPBJATCZ7MOZQTUDGV4OEHHG"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/U3GZ42MYPGD35V652ZPVPYYS7A7LVXVY"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VUZBGKGVZADNA3I24NVG7HAYYUTOSN5A"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202104-08"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2021/dsa-4911"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8V6R-WPH3-967X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:19 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:19A component of the HarmonyOS has a Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability. Local attackers may exploit this vulnerability to bypass the control mechanism.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-22460"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-28T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A component of the HarmonyOS has a Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability. Local attackers may exploit this vulnerability to bypass the control mechanism.",
"id": "GHSA-8v6r-wph3-967x",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:19:09Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:19:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22460"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/cn/docs/security/update/security-bulletins-202107-0000001123874808"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8W6G-5XQ3-HVC5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-08 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:41Insufficient verification of data authenticity in Zoom Desktop Client for Windows before 5.14.5 may allow an authenticated user to enable an escalation of privilege via network access.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36541"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-08T18:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient verification of data authenticity in Zoom Desktop Client for Windows before 5.14.5 may allow an authenticated user to enable an escalation of privilege via network access.",
"id": "GHSA-8w6g-5xq3-hvc5",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:41:58Z",
"published": "2023-08-08T18:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36541"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://explore.zoom.us/en/trust/security/security-bulletin"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8X4M-QW58-3PCX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-29 15:15 – Updated: 2026-03-29 15:15Impact
Multiple vulnerabilities were discovered in tempo/charge and tempo/session which allowed for undesirable behaviors, including:
- Replaying tempo/charge transaction hashes across push/pull modes, across charge/session endpoints, and via concurrent requests
- Performing free tempo/charge requests due to missing transfer log verification in pull-mode
- Replaying tempo/charge credentials across routes via cross-route scope confusion (memo/splits not included in scope binding)
- Manipulating the fee payer of a tempo/charge handler into paying for requests (missing sender signature before co-signing)
- Bypassing tempo/session voucher signature verification
- Piggybacking off existing tempo/session channels via settle voucher reuse and weak channel ID binding
- Performing free tempo/session requests by exploiting channel reopen without on-chain settled state
- Accepting deductions on finalized tempo/session channels
- Bypassing payment on free routes via method-mismatch fallback
- Griefing tempo/session channels via force-close detection bypass (closeRequestedAt not persisted)
Patches
Fixed in 0.4.8.
Workarounds
There are no workarounds available for these vulnerabilities.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "mppx"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-288",
"CWE-294",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-29T15:15:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nMultiple vulnerabilities were discovered in `tempo/charge` and `tempo/session` which allowed for undesirable behaviors, including:\n- Replaying `tempo/charge` transaction hashes across push/pull modes, across charge/session endpoints, and via concurrent requests\n- Performing free `tempo/charge` requests due to missing transfer log verification in pull-mode\n- Replaying `tempo/charge` credentials across routes via cross-route scope confusion (`memo`/`splits` not included in scope binding)\n- Manipulating the fee payer of a `tempo/charge` handler into paying for requests (missing sender signature before co-signing)\n- Bypassing `tempo/session` voucher signature verification\n- Piggybacking off existing `tempo/session` channels via settle voucher reuse and weak channel ID binding\n- Performing free `tempo/session` requests by exploiting channel reopen without on-chain settled state\n- Accepting deductions on finalized `tempo/session` channels\n- Bypassing payment on free routes via method-mismatch fallback\n- Griefing `tempo/session` channels via force-close detection bypass (`closeRequestedAt` not persisted)\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in 0.4.8.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThere are no workarounds available for these vulnerabilities.",
"id": "GHSA-8x4m-qw58-3pcx",
"modified": "2026-03-29T15:15:36Z",
"published": "2026-03-29T15:15:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wevm/mppx/security/advisories/GHSA-8x4m-qw58-3pcx"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/wevm/mppx"
}
],
"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:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "mppx has multiple payment bypass and griefing vulnerabilities"
}
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.