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-QV35-3GW6-8Q4J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-05 14:46 – Updated: 2025-01-29 19:04Impact
A malicious registry could return a different digest for a pinned manifest without detection.
Patches
This has been fixed in the v0.7.1 release.
Workarounds
After running a regclient.ManifestGet, the returned digest can be compared to the requested digest.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/regclient/regclient"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.7.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-24882"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-08-05T14:46:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-29T18:15:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nA malicious registry could return a different digest for a pinned manifest without detection.\n\n### Patches\nThis has been fixed in the v0.7.1 release.\n\n### Workarounds\nAfter running a `regclient.ManifestGet`, the returned digest can be compared to the requested digest.\n",
"id": "GHSA-qv35-3gw6-8q4j",
"modified": "2025-01-29T19:04:36Z",
"published": "2024-08-05T14:46:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/regclient/regclient/security/advisories/GHSA-qv35-3gw6-8q4j"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-24882"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/regclient/regclient/commit/7d17cff26c22196b5ddd66bda8c5ee4abf3d1269"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/regclient/regclient"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-3038"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "In regclient, pinned manifest digests may be ignored"
}
GHSA-QV97-5QR8-2266
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 15:25 – Updated: 2025-05-07 15:25Impact
Mithril certification of Cardano database
The Mithril network provides certification for snapshots of the Cardano database, enabling users to quickly bootstrap a Cardano node without relying on the slower peer-to-peer synchronization process.
To generate a multi-signature, a minimum threshold of Cardano stake registered in the protocol must agree on signing the same message. In this context, a digest is computed from the internal files of the Cardano node's database. However, this mechanism has certain limitations. Specifically, some files are not identically generated across all Cardano nodes, and there is no API to provide consistent snapshots at a specific beacon on the Cardano chain:
- All immutable files, except the last one (which is still being created), are used to compute the message
- The last immutable file is excluded from the signature
- The ledger state files are also excluded from the signature.
Cardano node startup sequence
A Cardano node can only perform a fast bootstrap if a pre-computed ledger state is loaded into its database; otherwise, a full re-computation is required, which is time-consuming. During the startup phase with a pre-computed ledger state, the node performs structural verification of the ledger state and lightweight conformity checks which may not be enough to systematically detect invalid ledger state.
Attack scenarios
Inconsistencies could be introduced into a tampered ledger state distributed through Mithril snapshots, either by an unknown source or by a compromised IOG-operated aggregator. These inconsistencies would not be immediately detected by Cardano nodes started with such snapshots, potentially enabling long-range attacks that might not be corrected by honest nodes, even if they sync from genesis.
Currently, a Mithril network has only one aggregator, which serves snapshots from a secure cloud location operated by IOG and is therefore assumed to be trustworthy. In the future, as Mithril networks become more decentralized, multiple aggregators will operate independently. This increased decentralization could raise the risk of a malicious aggregator distributing a tampered ledger state.
Patches
As a mitigation, the Mithril aggregator now signs the ledger state snapshot and the latest immutable file using an IOG-owned key, and the client library and CLI validate the signature of these files upon download.
- The Mithril client library has been fixed with version
0.12.2, previous versions must not be used anymore. - The Mithril client CLI has been fixed with version
0.12.1, previous versions must not be used anymore. - The Mithril aggregator has been fixed with version
0.7.44, previous versions must not be used anymore.
References
- Mithril protocol in depth: https://mithril.network/doc/next/mithril/mithril-protocol/protocol
- Bootstrap a Cardano node: https://mithril.network/doc/manual/getting-started/bootstrap-cardano-node
- Mithril certification of the Cardano node database: https://mithril.network/doc/mithril/advanced/mithril-certification/cardano-node-database
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "mithril-client"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.12.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-07T15:25:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\n#### Mithril certification of Cardano database\n\nThe Mithril network provides certification for snapshots of the Cardano database, enabling users to quickly bootstrap a Cardano node without relying on the slower peer-to-peer synchronization process.\n\nTo generate a multi-signature, a minimum threshold of Cardano stake registered in the protocol must agree on signing the same message. In this context, a digest is computed from the internal files of the Cardano node\u0027s database. However, this mechanism has certain limitations. Specifically, some files are not identically generated across all Cardano nodes, and there is no API to provide consistent snapshots at a specific beacon on the Cardano chain:\n\n- All immutable files, except the last one (which is still being created), are used to compute the message\n- The last immutable file is excluded from the signature\n- The ledger state files are also excluded from the signature.\n\n#### Cardano node startup sequence\n\nA Cardano node can only perform a fast bootstrap if a pre-computed ledger state is loaded into its database; otherwise, a full re-computation is required, which is time-consuming. During the startup phase with a pre-computed ledger state, the node performs structural verification of the ledger state and lightweight conformity checks which may not be enough to systematically detect invalid ledger state.\n\n#### Attack scenarios\n\nInconsistencies could be introduced into a tampered ledger state distributed through Mithril snapshots, either by an unknown source or by a compromised IOG-operated aggregator. These inconsistencies would not be immediately detected by Cardano nodes started with such snapshots, potentially enabling long-range attacks that might not be corrected by honest nodes, even if they sync from genesis.\n\nCurrently, a Mithril network has only one aggregator, which serves snapshots from a secure cloud location operated by IOG and is therefore assumed to be trustworthy. In the future, as Mithril networks become more decentralized, multiple aggregators will operate independently. This increased decentralization could raise the risk of a malicious aggregator distributing a tampered ledger state.\n\n### Patches\n\nAs a mitigation, the Mithril aggregator now signs the ledger state snapshot and the latest immutable file using an IOG-owned key, and the client library and CLI validate the signature of these files upon download.\n\n- The **Mithril client library** has been fixed with version `0.12.2`, **previous versions must not be used anymore**.\n- The **Mithril client CLI** has been fixed with version `0.12.1`, **previous versions must not be used anymore**.\n- The **Mithril aggregator** has been fixed with version `0.7.44`, **previous versions must not be used anymore**.\n\n### References\n\n- _Mithril protocol in depth_: https://mithril.network/doc/next/mithril/mithril-protocol/protocol\n- _Bootstrap a Cardano node_: https://mithril.network/doc/manual/getting-started/bootstrap-cardano-node\n- _Mithril certification of the Cardano node database_: https://mithril.network/doc/mithril/advanced/mithril-certification/cardano-node-database",
"id": "GHSA-qv97-5qr8-2266",
"modified": "2025-05-07T15:25:18Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T15:25:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/input-output-hk/mithril/security/advisories/GHSA-qv97-5qr8-2266"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/input-output-hk/mithril"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Mithril snapshots for Cardano database could be compromised by an adversary"
}
GHSA-QVV5-JQ5G-4CGG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-10 19:33 – Updated: 2026-06-10 19:33Impact
Any baileys session under the latest version (< 7.0.0-rc12, and < 6.7.22) can be sent a malicious payload via the placeholderResendMessage and trigger a fake messages.upsert event with a fake message key and payload. This allows anyone to spoof messages. The same exploit also allows an attacker to corrupt the app state sync system by sending fake key shares, and also allows for history sync spoofing which also serves the same problem, injecting fake previous context or "on-demand" sync.
Patches
https://github.com/WhiskeySockets/Baileys/commit/3beb08eecfcb4e65722e674034bd84fb11a9de35 This commit has patched the issue, and a version tag has been released under 7.0.0 (6.7.22) for those still on Baileys v6. A new Baileys version, v7.0.0-rc12, has been released to remediate this.
Workarounds
There are no real workarounds other than dropping messages.upsertevents that contain a requestId field, turning off automatic history sync (shouldSyncHistoryMessage: () => false) in socket config. There are no workarounds for the app state sync jamming.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "baileys"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.7.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@whiskeysockets/baileys"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.7.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "baileys"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.0.0-rc.1"
},
{
"fixed": "7.0.0-rc12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@whiskeysockets/baileys"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "7.0.0-rc.1"
},
{
"fixed": "7.0.0-rc12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48063"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-290",
"CWE-345",
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-10T19:33:20Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Impact\nAny baileys session under the latest version (\u003c 7.0.0-rc12, and \u003c 6.7.22) can be sent a malicious payload via the placeholderResendMessage and trigger a fake `messages.upsert` event with a **fake message key and payload**. This allows anyone to spoof messages. The same exploit also allows an attacker to corrupt the app state sync system by sending fake key shares, and also allows for history sync spoofing which also serves the same problem, injecting fake previous context or \"on-demand\" sync.\n\n### Patches\nhttps://github.com/WhiskeySockets/Baileys/commit/3beb08eecfcb4e65722e674034bd84fb11a9de35 This commit has patched the issue, and a version tag has been released under 7.0.0 (6.7.22) for those still on Baileys v6. A new Baileys version, v7.0.0-rc12, has been released to remediate this.\n\n\n### Workarounds\nThere are no real workarounds other than dropping `messages.upsert `events that contain a `requestId` field, turning off automatic history sync (`shouldSyncHistoryMessage: () =\u003e false`) in socket config. There are no workarounds for the app state sync jamming.",
"id": "GHSA-qvv5-jq5g-4cgg",
"modified": "2026-06-10T19:33:20Z",
"published": "2026-06-10T19:33:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WhiskeySockets/Baileys/security/advisories/GHSA-qvv5-jq5g-4cgg"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WhiskeySockets/Baileys/commit/3beb08eecfcb4e65722e674034bd84fb11a9de35"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WhiskeySockets/Baileys"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Baileys has message upsert / hist sync spoofing and app state corruption when using maliciously crafted protocolMessage payload"
}
GHSA-QW5X-X275-9WWH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-29 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 07:58An issue has been discovered in GitLab affecting all versions starting from 11.2 before 16.2.8, all versions starting from 16.3 before 16.3.5, all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.4.1. It was possible that a maintainer to create a fork relationship between existing projects contrary to the documentation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-3920"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-29T07:15:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue has been discovered in GitLab affecting all versions starting from 11.2 before 16.2.8, all versions starting from 16.3 before 16.3.5, all versions starting from 16.4 before 16.4.1. It was possible that a maintainer to create a fork relationship between existing projects contrary to the documentation.",
"id": "GHSA-qw5x-x275-9wwh",
"modified": "2024-04-04T07:58:13Z",
"published": "2023-09-29T09:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-3920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2058121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/417481"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QW8R-VCWC-VJC9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:13 – Updated: 2022-11-25 21:30The ftp client in GNU Inetutils before 2.2 does not validate addresses returned by PASV/LSPV responses to make sure they match the server address. This is similar to CVE-2020-8284 for curl.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-40491"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-03T02:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The ftp client in GNU Inetutils before 2.2 does not validate addresses returned by PASV/LSPV responses to make sure they match the server address. This is similar to CVE-2020-8284 for curl.",
"id": "GHSA-qw8r-vcwc-vjc9",
"modified": "2022-11-25T21:30:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:13:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40491"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=993476"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/inetutils.git/commit/?id=58cb043b190fd04effdaea7c9403416b436e50dd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2022/11/msg00033.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-inetutils/2021-06/msg00002.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QWVH-X5GW-88V2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-01 18:32 – Updated: 2024-08-02 18:31Insufficient data validation in Dawn in Google Chrome on Android prior to 127.0.6533.88 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-7256"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-01T18:15:26Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient data validation in Dawn in Google Chrome on Android prior to 127.0.6533.88 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)",
"id": "GHSA-qwvh-x5gw-88v2",
"modified": "2024-08-02T18:31:10Z",
"published": "2024-08-01T18:32:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7256"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2024/07/stable-channel-update-for-desktop_30.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://issues.chromium.org/issues/354748060"
}
],
"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-QX2M-P74G-XJWH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:44 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:02FreeRADIUS before 3.0.19 mishandles the "each participant verifies that the received scalar is within a range, and that the received group element is a valid point on the curve being used" protection mechanism, aka a "Dragonblood" issue, a similar issue to CVE-2019-9498 and CVE-2019-9499.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-11235"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-22T11:29:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "FreeRADIUS before 3.0.19 mishandles the \"each participant verifies that the received scalar is within a range, and that the received group element is a valid point on the curve being used\" protection mechanism, aka a \"Dragonblood\" issue, a similar issue to CVE-2019-9498 and CVE-2019-9499.",
"id": "GHSA-qx2m-p74g-xjwh",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:02:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:44:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11235"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1131"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:1142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695748"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://freeradius.org/release_notes/?br=3.0.x\u0026re=3.0.19"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://freeradius.org/security"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/dragonblood.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/3954-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/871675"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-05/msg00014.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-05/msg00032.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-04/msg00033.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QX8J-G322-QJ6M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-09 17:37 – Updated: 2026-04-10 20:24Impact
fetchWithSsrFGuard replays unsafe request bodies across cross-origin redirects.
A guarded fetch could resend unsafe request bodies or headers when following cross-origin redirects.
OpenClaw is a user-controlled local assistant. This advisory is scoped to the OpenClaw trust model and does not assume a multi-tenant service boundary.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected versions:
<2026.3.31 - Patched versions:
2026.4.8
Fix
The issue was fixed on main and is available in the patched npm version listed above. The verified fixed tree is commit d7c3210cd6f5fdfdc1beff4c9541673e814354d5.
Verification
The fix was re-checked against main before publication, including targeted regression tests for the affected security boundary.
Credits
Thanks @BG0ECV for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.4.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40037"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-09T17:37:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Impact\n\n`fetchWithSsrFGuard` replays unsafe request bodies across cross-origin redirects.\n\nA guarded fetch could resend unsafe request bodies or headers when following cross-origin redirects.\n\nOpenClaw is a user-controlled local assistant. This advisory is scoped to the OpenClaw trust model and does not assume a multi-tenant service boundary.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected versions: `\u003c2026.3.31`\n- Patched versions: `2026.4.8`\n\n## Fix\n\nThe issue was fixed on `main` and is available in the patched npm version listed above. The verified fixed tree is commit `d7c3210cd6f5fdfdc1beff4c9541673e814354d5`.\n\n## Verification\n\nThe fix was re-checked against `main` before publication, including targeted regression tests for the affected security boundary.\n\n## Credits\n\nThanks @BG0ECV for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-qx8j-g322-qj6m",
"modified": "2026-04-10T20:24:59Z",
"published": "2026-04-09T17:37:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-qx8j-g322-qj6m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40037"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/d7c3210cd6f5fdfdc1beff4c9541673e814354d5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-unsafe-request-body-replay-via-fetchwithssrfguard-cross-origin-redirects"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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: `fetchWithSsrFGuard` replays unsafe request bodies across cross-origin redirects"
}
GHSA-R29C-758H-F3VF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:49 – Updated: 2023-02-28 18:30In Hunesion i-oneNet version 3.0.7 ~ 3.0.53 and 4.0.4 ~ 4.0.16, due to the lack of update file integrity checking in the upgrade process, an attacker can craft malicious file and use it as an update.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-12804"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-10T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Hunesion i-oneNet version 3.0.7 ~ 3.0.53 and 4.0.4 ~ 4.0.16, due to the lack of update file integrity checking in the upgrade process, an attacker can craft malicious file and use it as an update.",
"id": "GHSA-r29c-758h-f3vf",
"modified": "2023-02-28T18:30:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:49:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-12804"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.boho.or.kr/krcert/secNoticeView.do?bulletin_writing_sequence=35073"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R2M4-J583-8HW8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:17 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:17resolv.c in the DNS resolver in uIP, and dns.c in the DNS resolver in lwIP 1.4.1 and earlier, does not use random values for ID fields and source ports of DNS query packets, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cache-poisoning attacks via spoofed reply packets.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-4883"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-11-28T02:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "resolv.c in the DNS resolver in uIP, and dns.c in the DNS resolver in lwIP 1.4.1 and earlier, does not use random values for ID fields and source ports of DNS query packets, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to conduct cache-poisoning attacks via spoofed reply packets.",
"id": "GHSA-r2m4-j583-8hw8",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:17:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:17:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-4883"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lwip.git/commit/?id=9fb46e120655ac481b2af8f865d5ae56c39b831a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/210620"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-141: Cache Poisoning
An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value.
CAPEC-142: DNS Cache Poisoning
A domain name server translates a domain name (such as www.example.com) into an IP address that Internet hosts use to contact Internet resources. An adversary modifies a public DNS cache to cause certain names to resolve to incorrect addresses that the adversary specifies. The result is that client applications that rely upon the targeted cache for domain name resolution will be directed not to the actual address of the specified domain name but to some other address. Adversaries can use this to herd clients to sites that install malware on the victim's computer or to masquerade as part of a Pharming attack.
CAPEC-148: Content Spoofing
An adversary modifies content to make it contain something other than what the original content producer intended while keeping the apparent source of the content unchanged. The term content spoofing is most often used to describe modification of web pages hosted by a target to display the adversary's content instead of the owner's content. However, any content can be spoofed, including the content of email messages, file transfers, or the content of other network communication protocols. Content can be modified at the source (e.g. modifying the source file for a web page) or in transit (e.g. intercepting and modifying a message between the sender and recipient). Usually, the adversary will attempt to hide the fact that the content has been modified, but in some cases, such as with web site defacement, this is not necessary. Content Spoofing can lead to malware exposure, financial fraud (if the content governs financial transactions), privacy violations, and other unwanted outcomes.
CAPEC-218: Spoofing of UDDI/ebXML Messages
An attacker spoofs a UDDI, ebXML, or similar message in order to impersonate a service provider in an e-business transaction. UDDI, ebXML, and similar standards are used to identify businesses in e-business transactions. Among other things, they identify a particular participant, WSDL information for SOAP transactions, and supported communication protocols, including security protocols. By spoofing one of these messages an attacker could impersonate a legitimate business in a transaction or could manipulate the protocols used between a client and business. This could result in disclosure of sensitive information, loss of message integrity, or even financial fraud.
CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.
CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.
CAPEC-701: Browser in the Middle (BiTM)
An adversary exploits the inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to establish an unnoticed remote desktop connection in the victim's browser to the adversary's system. The adversary must deploy a web client with a remote desktop session that the victim can access.