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-XH5J-XJFQ-QVVX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 22:14 – Updated: 2026-05-29 22:14Impact
A mismatch in federation peer-token timestamp handling could cause valid peer tokens to be treated as expired. Impacted deployments are Stigmem nodes using federation peer authentication paths from affected versions. The primary impact is availability and reliability of authenticated federation flows.
Patches
Patched in 0.9.0a2. Federation peer-token timestamp handling now uses the canonical millisecond-based validation path and is covered by regression tests.
Workarounds
Before upgrading, avoid mixed peer-token minting paths and restrict federation use to tightly controlled peers.
Upgrade
Upgrade to the patched release:
pip install --upgrade --pre stigmem-node
If developers install through the Stigmem meta-package instead, they should use the matching extra for deployments, for example:
pip install --upgrade --pre 'stigmem[node]'
Resources
- Release: https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/releases/tag/v0.9.0a2
- Changelog: https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/blob/v0.9.0a2/CHANGELOG.md#L14-L35
- Security policy and posture: https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/blob/v0.9.0a2/SECURITY.md
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "stigmem-node"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.0a2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-29T22:14:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nA mismatch in federation peer-token timestamp handling could cause valid peer tokens to be treated as expired. Impacted deployments are Stigmem nodes using federation peer authentication paths from affected versions. The primary impact is availability and reliability of authenticated federation flows.\n\n### Patches\nPatched in 0.9.0a2. Federation peer-token timestamp handling now uses the canonical millisecond-based validation path and is covered by regression tests.\n\n### Workarounds\nBefore upgrading, avoid mixed peer-token minting paths and restrict federation use to tightly controlled peers.\n\n### Upgrade\nUpgrade to the patched release:\n\n```bash\npip install --upgrade --pre stigmem-node\n```\n\nIf developers install through the Stigmem meta-package instead, they should use the matching extra for deployments, for example:\n\n```bash\npip install --upgrade --pre \u0027stigmem[node]\u0027\n```\n\n### Resources\n- Release: https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/releases/tag/v0.9.0a2\n- Changelog: https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/blob/v0.9.0a2/CHANGELOG.md#L14-L35\n- Security policy and posture: https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/blob/v0.9.0a2/SECURITY.md",
"id": "GHSA-xh5j-xjfq-qvvx",
"modified": "2026-05-29T22:14:34Z",
"published": "2026-05-29T22:14:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/security/advisories/GHSA-xh5j-xjfq-qvvx"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/blob/v0.9.0a2/CHANGELOG.md#L14-L35"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/blob/v0.9.0a2/SECURITY.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/eidetic-labs/stigmem/releases/tag/v0.9.0a2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "stigmem-node\u0027s federation peer token timestamp validation may reject valid peer tokens"
}
GHSA-XH87-MX6M-69F3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-25 18:02 – Updated: 2026-02-27 20:55Summary
When using the AWS Lambda adapter (hono/aws-lambda) behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB), the getConnInfo() function incorrectly selected the first value from the X-Forwarded-For header.
Because AWS ALB appends the real client IP address to the end of the X-Forwarded-For header, the first value can be attacker-controlled.
This could allow IP-based access control mechanisms (such as the ipRestriction middleware) to be bypassed.
Details
In ALB environments, AWS appends the actual client IP address to the end of any existing X-Forwarded-For header value. However, the previous implementation of getConnInfo() extracted the leftmost IP address:
address = xff.split(',')[0].trim()
If a client sent:
X-Forwarded-For: <spoofed-ip>
ALB would forward:
X-Forwarded-For: <spoofed-ip>, <real-client-ip>
Since the implementation selected the first value, the spoofed IP address was trusted. This affected applications using:
ipRestriction(getConnInfo, { allowList: [...] })
or any custom middleware relying on getConnInfo(c).remote.address for authorization decisions.
The issue only affects deployments using the AWS Lambda adapter behind an ALB. API Gateway (v1/v2) and Lambda Function URLs are not affected, as they use AWS-provided source IP values from requestContext.
Impact
An unauthenticated remote attacker could bypass IP-based access restrictions by supplying a crafted X-Forwarded-For header. This may allow access to resources that were intended to be restricted by IP address.
Only applications deployed behind an ALB and relying on getConnInfo() for IP-based authorization are affected.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "hono"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.12.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.12.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-27700"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-290",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-25T18:02:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-25T16:23:26Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nWhen using the AWS Lambda adapter (`hono/aws-lambda`) behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB), the `getConnInfo()` function incorrectly selected the first value from the `X-Forwarded-For` header.\n\nBecause AWS ALB appends the real client IP address to the end of the `X-Forwarded-For` header, the first value can be attacker-controlled.\n\nThis could allow IP-based access control mechanisms (such as the `ipRestriction` middleware) to be bypassed.\n\n## Details\n\nIn ALB environments, AWS appends the actual client IP address to the end of any existing `X-Forwarded-For` header value. However, the previous implementation of `getConnInfo()` extracted the leftmost IP address:\n\n```ts\naddress = xff.split(\u0027,\u0027)[0].trim()\n```\n\nIf a client sent:\n\n```\nX-Forwarded-For: \u003cspoofed-ip\u003e\n```\n\nALB would forward:\n\n```\nX-Forwarded-For: \u003cspoofed-ip\u003e, \u003creal-client-ip\u003e\n```\n\nSince the implementation selected the first value, the spoofed IP address was trusted. This affected applications using:\n\n```ts\nipRestriction(getConnInfo, { allowList: [...] })\n```\n\nor any custom middleware relying on `getConnInfo(c).remote.address` for authorization decisions.\n\nThe issue only affects deployments using the AWS Lambda adapter behind an ALB. API Gateway (v1/v2) and Lambda Function URLs are not affected, as they use AWS-provided source IP values from `requestContext`.\n\n## Impact\n\nAn unauthenticated remote attacker could bypass IP-based access restrictions by supplying a crafted `X-Forwarded-For` header. This may allow access to resources that were intended to be restricted by IP address.\n\nOnly applications deployed behind an ALB and relying on `getConnInfo()` for IP-based authorization are affected.",
"id": "GHSA-xh87-mx6m-69f3",
"modified": "2026-02-27T20:55:22Z",
"published": "2026-02-25T18:02:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/security/advisories/GHSA-xh87-mx6m-69f3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-27700"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/commit/41adbf56e252c04611f8972364ac0887ae07a4c7"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/releases/tag/v4.12.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Hono is Vulnerable to Authentication Bypass by IP Spoofing in AWS Lambda ALB conninfo"
}
GHSA-XJ5X-M3F3-5X3H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 02:44 – Updated: 2026-04-06 23:11Impact
A service worker running in a session could spoof reply messages on the internal IPC channel used by webContents.executeJavaScript() and related methods, causing the main-process promise to resolve with attacker-controlled data.
Apps are only affected if they have service workers registered and use the result of webContents.executeJavaScript() (or webFrameMain.executeJavaScript()) in security-sensitive decisions.
Workarounds
Do not trust the return value of webContents.executeJavaScript() for security decisions. Use dedicated, validated IPC channels for security-relevant communication with renderers.
Fixed Versions
41.0.040.8.139.8.138.8.6
For more information
If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, please email security@electronjs.org
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "electron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "38.8.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "electron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "39.0.0-alpha.1"
},
{
"fixed": "39.8.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "electron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "40.0.0-alpha.1"
},
{
"fixed": "40.8.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "electron"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "41.0.0-alpha.1"
},
{
"fixed": "41.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34778"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-290",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-03T02:44:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-04T00:16:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nA service worker running in a session could spoof reply messages on the internal IPC channel used by `webContents.executeJavaScript()` and related methods, causing the main-process promise to resolve with attacker-controlled data.\n\nApps are only affected if they have service workers registered and use the result of `webContents.executeJavaScript()` (or `webFrameMain.executeJavaScript()`) in security-sensitive decisions.\n\n### Workarounds\nDo not trust the return value of `webContents.executeJavaScript()` for security decisions. Use dedicated, validated IPC channels for security-relevant communication with renderers.\n\n### Fixed Versions\n* `41.0.0`\n* `40.8.1`\n* `39.8.1`\n* `38.8.6`\n\n### For more information\nIf there are any questions or comments about this advisory, please email [security@electronjs.org](mailto:security@electronjs.org)",
"id": "GHSA-xj5x-m3f3-5x3h",
"modified": "2026-04-06T23:11:12Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T02:44:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/electron/electron/security/advisories/GHSA-xj5x-m3f3-5x3h"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34778"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/electron/electron"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Electron: Service worker can spoof executeJavaScript IPC replies"
}
GHSA-XJQG-WXV8-WVG6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-11 21:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:53An issue was discovered on AudioCodes VoIP desk phones through 3.4.4.1000. The validation of firmware images only consists of simple checksum checks for different firmware components. Thus, by knowing how to calculate and where to store the required checksums for the flasher tool, an attacker is able to store malicious firmware.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22955"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-11T20:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on AudioCodes VoIP desk phones through 3.4.4.1000. The validation of firmware images only consists of simple checksum checks for different firmware components. Thus, by knowing how to calculate and where to store the required checksums for the flasher tool, an attacker is able to store malicious firmware.",
"id": "GHSA-xjqg-wxv8-wvg6",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:53:33Z",
"published": "2023-08-11T21:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22955"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://syss.de"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.syss.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Publikationen/Advisories/SYSS-2022-055.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/174214/AudioCodes-VoIP-Phones-Insufficient-Firmware-Validation.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2023/Aug/17"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-XQR8-7JWR-RHP7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-25 14:43 – Updated: 2025-02-12 21:33Certifi 2023.07.22 removes root certificates from "e-Tugra" from the root store. These are in the process of being removed from Mozilla's trust store.
e-Tugra's root certificates are being removed pursuant to an investigation prompted by reporting of security issues in their systems. Conclusions of Mozilla's investigation can be found here.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "certifi"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2015.4.28"
},
{
"fixed": "2023.7.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-37920"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-25T14:43:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-25T21:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Certifi 2023.07.22 removes root certificates from \"e-Tugra\" from the root store. These are in the process of being removed from Mozilla\u0027s trust store.\n\n e-Tugra\u0027s root certificates are being removed pursuant to an investigation prompted by reporting of security issues in their systems. Conclusions of Mozilla\u0027s investigation can be found [here](https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-policy/c/C-HrP1SEq1A).",
"id": "GHSA-xqr8-7jwr-rhp7",
"modified": "2025-02-12T21:33:44Z",
"published": "2023-07-25T14:43:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/certifi/python-certifi/security/advisories/GHSA-xqr8-7jwr-rhp7"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37920"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/certifi/python-certifi/commit/8fb96ed81f71e7097ed11bc4d9b19afd7ea5c909"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/certifi/python-certifi"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/certifi/PYSEC-2023-135.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-policy/c/C-HrP1SEq1A"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5EX6NG7WUFNUKGFHLM35KHHU3GAKXRTG"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20240912-0002"
}
],
"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": "Removal of e-Tugra root certificate"
}
GHSA-XR6M-H5M8-P48R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:44 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:04Cloud Foundry BOSH Backup and Restore CLI, all versions prior to 1.5.0, does not check the authenticity of backup scripts in BOSH. A remote authenticated malicious user can modify the metadata file of a Bosh Backup and Restore job to request extra backup files from different jobs upon restore. The exploited hooks in this metadata script were only maintained in the cfcr-etcd-release, so clusters deployed with the BBR job for etcd in this release are vulnerable.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-3786"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-269",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-24T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cloud Foundry BOSH Backup and Restore CLI, all versions prior to 1.5.0, does not check the authenticity of backup scripts in BOSH. A remote authenticated malicious user can modify the metadata file of a Bosh Backup and Restore job to request extra backup files from different jobs upon restore. The exploited hooks in this metadata script were only maintained in the cfcr-etcd-release, so clusters deployed with the BBR job for etcd in this release are vulnerable.",
"id": "GHSA-xr6m-h5m8-p48r",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:04:54Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:44:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-3786"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cloudfoundry.org/blog/cve-2019-3786"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XV8G-HCFJ-PPCW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:52 – Updated: 2022-05-26 00:01It was found that in icedtea-web up to and including 1.7.2 and 1.8.2 executable code could be injected in a JAR file without compromising the signature verification. An attacker could use this flaw to inject code in a trusted JAR. The code would be executed inside the sandbox.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10181"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-31T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "It was found that in icedtea-web up to and including 1.7.2 and 1.8.2 executable code could be injected in a JAR file without compromising the signature verification. An attacker could use this flaw to inject code in a trusted JAR. The code would be executed inside the sandbox.",
"id": "GHSA-xv8g-hcfj-ppcw",
"modified": "2022-05-26T00:01:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:52:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10181"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/IcedTea-Web/issues/327"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/IcedTea-Web/pull/344"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2003"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2019-10181"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725928"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2019-10181"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/09/msg00008.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Oct/5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/202107-51"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-08/msg00045.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/154748/IcedTeaWeb-Validation-Bypass-Directory-Traversal-Code-Execution.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-XW73-RW38-6VJC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-01 20:51 – Updated: 2024-07-05 18:59The classic builder cache system is prone to cache poisoning if the image is built FROM scratch.
Also, changes to some instructions (most important being HEALTHCHECK and ONBUILD) would not cause a cache miss.
An attacker with the knowledge of the Dockerfile someone is using could poison their cache by making them pull a specially crafted image that would be considered as a valid cache candidate for some build steps.
For example, an attacker could create an image that is considered as a valid cache candidate for:
FROM scratch
MAINTAINER Pawel
when in fact the malicious image used as a cache would be an image built from a different Dockerfile.
In the second case, the attacker could for example substitute a different HEALTCHECK command.
Impact
23.0+ users are only affected if they explicitly opted out of Buildkit (DOCKER_BUILDKIT=0 environment variable) or are using the /build API endpoint (which uses the classic builder by default).
All users on versions older than 23.0 could be impacted. An example could be a CI with a shared cache, or just a regular Docker user pulling a malicious image due to misspelling/typosquatting.
Image build API endpoint (/build) and ImageBuild function from github.com/docker/docker/client is also affected as it the uses classic builder by default.
Patches
Patches are included in Moby releases:
- v25.0.2
- v24.0.9
- v23.0.10
Workarounds
- Use
--no-cacheor use Buildkit if possible (DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1, it's default on 23.0+ assuming that the buildx plugin is installed). - Use
Version = types.BuilderBuildKitorNoCache = trueinImageBuildOptionsforImageBuildcall.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/docker/docker"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "24.0.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/moby/moby"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "24.0.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/moby/moby"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "25.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "25.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/docker/docker"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "25.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "25.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-24557"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-346"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-02-01T20:51:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-01T17:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The classic builder cache system is prone to cache poisoning if the image is built `FROM scratch`.\nAlso, changes to some instructions (most important being `HEALTHCHECK` and `ONBUILD`) would not cause a cache miss.\n\n\nAn attacker with the knowledge of the Dockerfile someone is using could poison their cache by making them pull a specially crafted image that would be considered as a valid cache candidate for some build steps.\n\nFor example, an attacker could create an image that is considered as a valid cache candidate for:\n```\nFROM scratch\nMAINTAINER Pawel\n```\n\nwhen in fact the malicious image used as a cache would be an image built from a different Dockerfile.\n\nIn the second case, the attacker could for example substitute a different `HEALTCHECK` command.\n\n\n### Impact\n\n23.0+ users are only affected if they explicitly opted out of Buildkit (`DOCKER_BUILDKIT=0` environment variable) or are using the `/build` API endpoint (which uses the classic builder by default).\n\nAll users on versions older than 23.0 could be impacted. An example could be a CI with a shared cache, or just a regular Docker user pulling a malicious image due to misspelling/typosquatting.\n\nImage build API endpoint (`/build`) and `ImageBuild` function from `github.com/docker/docker/client` is also affected as it the uses classic builder by default. \n\n\n### Patches\n\nPatches are included in Moby releases:\n\n- v25.0.2\n- v24.0.9\n- v23.0.10\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Use `--no-cache` or use Buildkit if possible (`DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1`, it\u0027s default on 23.0+ assuming that the buildx plugin is installed).\n- Use `Version = types.BuilderBuildKit` or `NoCache = true` in `ImageBuildOptions` for `ImageBuild` call.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-xw73-rw38-6vjc",
"modified": "2024-07-05T18:59:04Z",
"published": "2024-02-01T20:51:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/moby/security/advisories/GHSA-xw73-rw38-6vjc"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-24557"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/moby/commit/3e230cfdcc989dc524882f6579f9e0dac77400ae"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/moby/commit/fca702de7f71362c8d103073c7e4a1d0a467fadd"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/moby/commit/fce6e0ca9bc000888de3daa157af14fa41fcd0ff"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/moby/moby"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Classic builder cache poisoning"
}
GHSA-XWF9-PPP5-89QF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:19 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:19Configuration and database backup archives are not signed or validated in Trend Micro Deep Discovery Director 1.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-11379"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-08-01T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Configuration and database backup archives are not signed or validated in Trend Micro Deep Discovery Director 1.1.",
"id": "GHSA-xwf9-ppp5-89qf",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:19:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:19:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-11379"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/solution/1117663"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.coresecurity.com/advisories/trend-micro-deep-discovery-director-multiple-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"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.