CWE-697
DiscouragedIncorrect Comparison
Abstraction: Pillar · Status: Incomplete
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
234 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G433-PQ76-6CMF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-13 20:05 – Updated: 2026-03-25 21:37We publish a GitHub security advisory for any releases whose CHANGELOG includes bug-fixes, and encourage our users to upgrade. The latest releases of the hpke-rs and hpke-rs-rust-crypto crates contain the following bug-fixes:
hpke-rs
- #127: Fix
KemAlgorithm::TryFrom<u16>mapping where0x004Dincorrectly resolved toXWingDraft06instead ofXWingDraft06Obsolete. - #123: Fix potential overflow in context counter and switch to use u64.
- #128: Return errors when trying to use open/seal with export only ciphersuite and when using kdf export with an output that's too long (instead of truncating it)
The issue fixed in #123 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi. The issues fixed in #127 and #128 were first reported by Scott Arciszewski.
hpke-rs-rust-crypto
- #124: Error out on x25519 0 keys
The issue fixed in #124 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "hpke-rs"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "hpke-rs-rust-crypto"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-190",
"CWE-20",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-13T20:05:10Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "We publish a GitHub security advisory for any releases whose CHANGELOG includes bug-fixes, and encourage our users to upgrade. The latest releases of the hpke-rs and hpke-rs-rust-crypto crates contain the following bug-fixes:\n\n## hpke-rs\n- [#127](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/127): Fix `KemAlgorithm::TryFrom\u003cu16\u003e` mapping where `0x004D` incorrectly resolved to `XWingDraft06` instead of `XWingDraft06Obsolete`.\n- [#123](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/123): Fix potential overflow in context counter and switch to use u64.\n- [#128](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/128): Return errors when trying to use open/seal with export only ciphersuite and when using kdf export with an output that\u0027s too long (instead of truncating it)\n\nThe issue fixed in #123 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi.\nThe issues fixed in #127 and #128 were first reported by Scott Arciszewski.\n\n## hpke-rs-rust-crypto\n- [#124](https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/124): Error out on x25519 0 keys\n\nThe issue fixed in #124 was first reported by Nadim Kobeissi.",
"id": "GHSA-g433-pq76-6cmf",
"modified": "2026-03-25T21:37:22Z",
"published": "2026-02-13T20:05:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/security/advisories/GHSA-g433-pq76-6cmf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/123"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/127"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/pull/128"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/1c247b5c9aeca602ad2971c9bd49817fe2c308e6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/25248bd624cc0325c98a05c169a0c9aa0aced632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/3a8254938f43bdc4e0c9c4f987f8071f19779066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs/commit/b54c8bb83906331bdf4f606cafa30cd7fd20b531"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cryspen/hpke-rs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0070.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0072.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Bug fixes in hpke-rs, hpke-rs-rust-crypto"
}
GHSA-G58X-57FV-86JH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-06 15:30 – Updated: 2024-01-09 18:41Jenkins Google Login Plugin 1.7 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid token.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:google-login"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-41936"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-09T18:41:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-06T13:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jenkins Google Login Plugin 1.7 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid token.",
"id": "GHSA-g58x-57fv-86jh",
"modified": "2024-01-09T18:41:00Z",
"published": "2023-09-06T15:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-41936"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/google-login-plugin/commit/2273af025ad06ee13ab73a5a070b10689c2db61e"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/google-login-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2023-09-06/#SECURITY-3228"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/09/06/9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Google Login Plugin non-constant time token comparison"
}
GHSA-G759-4PXW-6692
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-10 13:37 – Updated: 2026-06-10 13:37Affected: @hulumi/policies < 1.4.0 — Fixed in: 1.4.0 — Severity: High — CWE-697 (Incorrect Comparison)
Summary
AWS IAM trust policies can list more than one federated identity provider — for example, a role that accepts BOTH GitHub Actions OIDC and Google's OIDC. The G_OIDC_1 and G_OIDC_2 policy rules are supposed to flag IAM roles whose GitHub-OIDC trust is too permissive (e.g. wildcard sub: conditions that would let any branch or any pull request assume the role).
The bug: when the role's Principal.Federated field was a JSON array of multiple providers, the rules failed to recognise that GitHub Actions was one of them. The providers list was coerced into a single comma-joined string, the matcher only looked at the start, and the GitHub OIDC hostname was lost in the join. Both rules concluded "this isn't a GitHub-OIDC role" and skipped the wildcard check.
Impact
A trust policy that listed the real GitHub OIDC provider ARN alongside any second provider would slip past both detectors. Consumers using HulumiHardeningPack or HulumiGithubHardeningPack could ship an IAM role with wildcard sub: conditions (allowing untrusted PRs from forks to assume the role) while their policy validation reported the stack as compliant. The G_OIDC_2 detector also failed to mark such roles for the cluster-admin / AdministratorAccess blast-radius check.
Patches
Upgrade to @hulumi/policies@1.4.0. The shared GitHub-OIDC-provider matcher now correctly walks lists of providers — if any element of the list is the real GitHub OIDC ARN, the role is treated as GitHub-OIDC-assumable and the wildcard / blast-radius checks apply.
Workarounds
None reliable — upgrade is the fix.
Resources
- PR #178 (Cluster A); regression tests at
packages/policies/tests/github/{g-oidc-2,github-oidc-issuer}.test.ts.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@hulumi/policies"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48032"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-10T13:37:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "**Affected:** `@hulumi/policies` `\u003c 1.4.0` \u2014 **Fixed in:** `1.4.0` \u2014 **Severity:** High \u2014 **CWE-697 (Incorrect Comparison)**\n\n#### Summary\n\nAWS IAM trust policies can list more than one federated identity provider \u2014 for example, a role that accepts BOTH GitHub Actions OIDC and Google\u0027s OIDC. The `G_OIDC_1` and `G_OIDC_2` policy rules are supposed to flag IAM roles whose GitHub-OIDC trust is too permissive (e.g. wildcard `sub:` conditions that would let any branch or any pull request assume the role).\n\nThe bug: when the role\u0027s `Principal.Federated` field was a JSON array of multiple providers, the rules failed to recognise that GitHub Actions was one of them. The providers list was coerced into a single comma-joined string, the matcher only looked at the start, and the GitHub OIDC hostname was lost in the join. Both rules concluded \"this isn\u0027t a GitHub-OIDC role\" and skipped the wildcard check.\n\n#### Impact\n\nA trust policy that listed the real GitHub OIDC provider ARN alongside any second provider would slip past both detectors. Consumers using `HulumiHardeningPack` or `HulumiGithubHardeningPack` could ship an IAM role with wildcard `sub:` conditions (allowing untrusted PRs from forks to assume the role) while their policy validation reported the stack as compliant. The G_OIDC_2 detector also failed to mark such roles for the cluster-admin / `AdministratorAccess` blast-radius check.\n\n#### Patches\n\nUpgrade to `@hulumi/policies@1.4.0`. The shared GitHub-OIDC-provider matcher now correctly walks lists of providers \u2014 if any element of the list is the real GitHub OIDC ARN, the role is treated as GitHub-OIDC-assumable and the wildcard / blast-radius checks apply.\n\n#### Workarounds\n\nNone reliable \u2014 upgrade is the fix.\n\n#### Resources\n\n- [PR #178](https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/pull/178) (Cluster A); regression tests at `packages/policies/tests/github/{g-oidc-2,github-oidc-issuer}.test.ts`.",
"id": "GHSA-g759-4pxw-6692",
"modified": "2026-06-10T13:37:08Z",
"published": "2026-06-10T13:37:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/security/advisories/GHSA-g759-4pxw-6692"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi/pull/178"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/kerberosmansour/hulumi"
}
],
"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:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "@hulumi/policies bypasses IAM-role policy checks when the role trusts multiple OIDC providers"
}
GHSA-GJJP-V35J-VHJ4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-08-17 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-19 00:00jpeg-quantsmooth before commit 8879454 contained a floating point exception (FPE) via /jpeg-quantsmooth/jpegqs+0x4f5d6c.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-35434"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-08-16T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "jpeg-quantsmooth before commit 8879454 contained a floating point exception (FPE) via /jpeg-quantsmooth/jpegqs+0x4f5d6c.",
"id": "GHSA-gjjp-v35j-vhj4",
"modified": "2022-08-19T00:00:23Z",
"published": "2022-08-17T00:00:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-35434"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ilyakurdyukov/jpeg-quantsmooth/issues/25"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H35F-9H28-MQ5C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-21 19:09 – Updated: 2026-07-21 19:09Summary
When building a source distribution (python -m build --sdist / setup.py sdist), setuptools' FileList applies MANIFEST.in directives (exclude, global-exclude, recursive-exclude, prune) by matching a compiled glob against on-disk file names byte-for-byte, with no Unicode normalization. On normalization-preserving filesystems (notably macOS APFS and HFS+), a file written in NFD and a MANIFEST.in rule written in NFC refer to the same file but are byte-distinct, so the exclusion silently fails to match. A file the maintainer intended to exclude is then packed into the .tar.gz and, if published, uploaded to the public, immutable PyPI index.
Details
File names in FileList.files come from os.walk (setuptools/_distutils/filelist.py, _find_all_simple), so on APFS a file written NFD is offered to the matcher in NFD, while the MANIFEST.in pattern carries the author's editor form (typically NFC). The matching path performs no canonicalization:
# setuptools/command/egg_info.py (FileList.global_exclude)
def global_exclude(self, pattern):
match = translate_pattern(os.path.join('**', pattern)) # fnmatch.translate -> regex, no NFC/NFD
return self._remove_files(match.match) # byte-level regex over raw os.walk names
A rule written NFC (café = 63 61 66 c3 a9) does not match an on-disk name written NFD (café = 63 61 66 65 cc 81), even though the filesystem treats the two as one file.
A unicodedata.normalize('NFD', ...) helper exists in setuptools/unicode_utils.py (decompose()), but it is never called in the manifest matching path, so neither the pattern nor the walked path is normalized before matching. The only normalization in this area, EggInfoCommand._manifest_normalize, uses filesys_decode (bytes→str decode only, no NFC/NFD) and runs when writing SOURCES.txt, after matching has already occurred.
Impact
MANIFEST.in exclusions are the documented mechanism maintainers use to keep secrets, local configs, and private fixtures out of the published sdist. A non-ASCII excluded file may be published to the public, immutable PyPI index despite the rule — an irreversible disclosure with no visual cue (NFC and NFD forms render identically). Exposure is filesystem-dependent and most relevant on macOS APFS/HFS+, where many maintainers build and publish. Pure-ASCII rules are unaffected.
Proof of concept
With a project containing MANIFEST.in:
global-include *.txt *.json
global-exclude secret_café.txt # rule saved NFC
and an on-disk file secret_café.txt written in NFD, python -m build --sdist packs the secret file into the resulting .tar.gz, while an ASCII control file excluded by the same directive is correctly dropped — isolating the bypass to the NFC-pattern vs. NFD-name mismatch. Reproduced on macOS APFS with setuptools 82.0.1.
Remediation
Normalize both the walked path and each MANIFEST.in pattern to a single canonical form before matching, in both setuptools/command/egg_info.py (FileList) and the vendored setuptools/_distutils/filelist.py. For an exclusion list, err toward excluding more, and document that MANIFEST.in matching is normalization-insensitive on macOS.
Credit
Reported by Tomas Illuminati. Coordinated via CERT/CC VINCE VU#604762.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "setuptools"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "83.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-59890"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-176",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-21T19:09:21Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-08T17:17:27Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nWhen building a source distribution (`python -m build --sdist` / `setup.py sdist`), setuptools\u0027 `FileList` applies `MANIFEST.in` directives (`exclude`, `global-exclude`, `recursive-exclude`, `prune`) by matching a compiled glob against on-disk file names **byte-for-byte, with no Unicode normalization**. On normalization-preserving filesystems (notably macOS APFS and HFS+), a file written in NFD and a `MANIFEST.in` rule written in NFC refer to the same file but are byte-distinct, so the exclusion silently fails to match. A file the maintainer intended to exclude is then packed into the `.tar.gz` and, if published, uploaded to the public, immutable PyPI index.\n\n## Details\n\nFile names in `FileList.files` come from `os.walk` (`setuptools/_distutils/filelist.py`, `_find_all_simple`), so on APFS a file written NFD is offered to the matcher in NFD, while the `MANIFEST.in` pattern carries the author\u0027s editor form (typically NFC). The matching path performs no canonicalization:\n\n```python\n# setuptools/command/egg_info.py (FileList.global_exclude)\ndef global_exclude(self, pattern):\n match = translate_pattern(os.path.join(\u0027**\u0027, pattern)) # fnmatch.translate -\u003e regex, no NFC/NFD\n return self._remove_files(match.match) # byte-level regex over raw os.walk names\n```\n\nA rule written NFC (`caf\u00e9` = `63 61 66 c3 a9`) does not match an on-disk name written NFD (`caf\u00e9` = `63 61 66 65 cc 81`), even though the filesystem treats the two as one file.\n\nA `unicodedata.normalize(\u0027NFD\u0027, ...)` helper exists in `setuptools/unicode_utils.py` (`decompose()`), but it is **never called in the manifest matching path**, so neither the pattern nor the walked path is normalized before matching. The only normalization in this area, `EggInfoCommand._manifest_normalize`, uses `filesys_decode` (bytes\u2192str decode only, no NFC/NFD) and runs when writing `SOURCES.txt`, after matching has already occurred.\n\n## Impact\n\n`MANIFEST.in` exclusions are the documented mechanism maintainers use to keep secrets, local configs, and private fixtures out of the published sdist. A non-ASCII excluded file may be published to the public, immutable PyPI index despite the rule \u2014 an irreversible disclosure with no visual cue (NFC and NFD forms render identically). Exposure is filesystem-dependent and most relevant on macOS APFS/HFS+, where many maintainers build and publish. Pure-ASCII rules are unaffected.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\nWith a project containing `MANIFEST.in`:\n\n```\nglobal-include *.txt *.json\nglobal-exclude secret_caf\u00e9.txt # rule saved NFC\n```\n\nand an on-disk file `secret_caf\u00e9.txt` written in NFD, `python -m build --sdist` packs the secret file into the resulting `.tar.gz`, while an ASCII control file excluded by the same directive is correctly dropped \u2014 isolating the bypass to the NFC-pattern vs. NFD-name mismatch. Reproduced on macOS APFS with setuptools 82.0.1.\n\n## Remediation\n\nNormalize both the walked path and each `MANIFEST.in` pattern to a single canonical form before matching, in both `setuptools/command/egg_info.py` (`FileList`) and the vendored `setuptools/_distutils/filelist.py`. For an exclusion list, err toward excluding more, and document that `MANIFEST.in` matching is normalization-insensitive on macOS.\n\n## Credit\n\nReported by Tomas Illuminati. Coordinated via CERT/CC VINCE VU#604762.",
"id": "GHSA-h35f-9h28-mq5c",
"modified": "2026-07-21T19:09:21Z",
"published": "2026-07-21T19:09:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/security/advisories/GHSA-h35f-9h28-mq5c"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-59890"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/commit/dd9f436a36486b4cb8a4c70a2321548b0be09b8f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/setuptools/PYSEC-2026-3447.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/setuptools"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/releases/tag/v83.0.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "setuptools: MANIFEST.in exclusion bypass in sdist via Unicode normalization collision (NFC/NFD) on macOS APFS/HFS+"
}
GHSA-H37C-4PG2-6XQ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:15 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:15An issue was discovered in libjpeg through 2020021. An uncaught floating point exception in the function ACLosslessScan::ParseMCU() located in aclosslessscan.cpp. It allows an attacker to cause Denial of Service.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-39514"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-20T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in libjpeg through 2020021. An uncaught floating point exception in the function ACLosslessScan::ParseMCU() located in aclosslessscan.cpp. It allows an attacker to cause Denial of Service.",
"id": "GHSA-h37c-4pg2-6xq6",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:15:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:15:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-39514"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/thorfdbg/libjpeg/issues/36"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-H43H-M87R-6X6H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:40 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:40WeBid 1.2.2 admin/newuser.php has an issue with password rechecking during registration because it uses a loose comparison to check the identicalness of two passwords. Two non-identical passwords can still bypass the check.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-23359"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-01-27T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "WeBid 1.2.2 admin/newuser.php has an issue with password rechecking during registration because it uses a loose comparison to check the identicalness of two passwords. Two non-identical passwords can still bypass the check.",
"id": "GHSA-h43h-m87r-6x6h",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:40:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:40:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-23359"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/renlok/WeBid/issues/530"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-H97M-WW89-6JMQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-09 20:41 – Updated: 2025-05-30 15:01idna 0.5.0 and earlier accepts Punycode labels that do not produce any non-ASCII output, which means that either ASCII labels or the empty root label can be masked such that they appear unequal without IDNA processing or when processed with a different implementation and equal when processed with idna 0.5.0 or earlier.
Concretely, example.org and xn--example-.org become equal after processing by idna 0.5.0 or earlier. Also, example.org.xn-- and example.org. become equal after processing by idna 0.5.0 or earlier.
In applications using idna (but not in idna itself) this may be able to lead to privilege escalation when host name comparison is part of a privilege check and the behavior is combined with a client that resolves domains with such labels instead of treating them as errors that preclude DNS resolution / URL fetching and with the attacker managing to introduce a DNS entry (and TLS certificate) for an xn---masked name that turns into the name of the target when processed by idna 0.5.0 or earlier.
Remedy
Upgrade to idna 1.0.3 or later, if depending on idna directly, or to url 2.5.4 or later, if depending on idna via url. (This issue was fixed in idna 1.0.0, but versions earlier than 1.0.3 are not recommended for other reasons.)
When upgrading, please take a moment to read about alternative Unicode back ends for idna.
If you are using Rust earlier than 1.81 in combination with SQLx 0.8.2 or earlier, please also read an issue about combining them with url 2.5.4 and idna 1.0.3.
Additional information
This issue resulted from idna 0.5.0 and earlier implementing the UTS 46 specification literally on this point and the specification having this bug. The specification bug has been fixed in revision 33 of UTS 46.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to kageshiron for recognizing the security implications of this behavior.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "idna"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-12224"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1289",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-12-09T20:41:10Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-30T02:15:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "`idna` 0.5.0 and earlier accepts Punycode labels that do not produce any non-ASCII output, which means that either ASCII labels or the empty root label can be masked such that they appear unequal without IDNA processing or when processed with a different implementation and equal when processed with `idna` 0.5.0 or earlier.\n\nConcretely, `example.org` and `xn--example-.org` become equal after processing by `idna` 0.5.0 or earlier. Also, `example.org.xn--` and `example.org.` become equal after processing by `idna` 0.5.0 or earlier.\n\nIn applications using `idna` (but not in `idna` itself) this may be able to lead to privilege escalation when host name comparison is part of a privilege check and the behavior is combined with a client that resolves domains with such labels instead of treating them as errors that preclude DNS resolution / URL fetching and with the attacker managing to introduce a DNS entry (and TLS certificate) for an `xn--`-masked name that turns into the name of the target when processed by `idna` 0.5.0 or earlier.\n\n## Remedy\n\nUpgrade to `idna` 1.0.3 or later, if depending on `idna` directly, or to `url` 2.5.4 or later, if depending on `idna` via `url`. (This issue was fixed in `idna` 1.0.0, but versions earlier than 1.0.3 are not recommended for other reasons.)\n\nWhen upgrading, please take a moment to read about [alternative Unicode back ends for `idna`](https://docs.rs/crate/idna_adapter/latest).\n\nIf you are using Rust earlier than 1.81 in combination with SQLx 0.8.2 or earlier, please also read an [issue](https://github.com/servo/rust-url/issues/992) about combining them with `url` 2.5.4 and `idna` 1.0.3.\n\n## Additional information\n\nThis issue resulted from `idna` 0.5.0 and earlier implementing the UTS 46 specification literally on this point and the specification having this bug. The specification bug has been fixed in [revision 33 of UTS 46](https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/tr46-33.html#Modifications).\n\n## Acknowledgements\n\nThanks to kageshiron for recognizing the security implications of this behavior.",
"id": "GHSA-h97m-ww89-6jmq",
"modified": "2025-05-30T15:01:30Z",
"published": "2024-12-09T20:41:10Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12224"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1887898"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/servo/rust-url"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0421.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "`idna` accepts Punycode labels that do not produce any non-ASCII when decoded"
}
GHSA-H9X2-5RM7-X4GM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2019-06-03 17:28 – Updated: 2020-08-31 18:09Versions of secure-compare prior to 3.0.1 are affected by a vulnerability that results in the package always returning true when comparing two strings of the same length, despite differences in the contents of those strings.
Recommendation
Upgrade to version 3.0.1 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "secure-compare"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-9238"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2019-06-03T17:22:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Versions of `secure-compare` prior to 3.0.1 are affected by a vulnerability that results in the package always returning true when comparing two strings of the same length, despite differences in the contents of those strings.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nUpgrade to version 3.0.1 or later.",
"id": "GHSA-h9x2-5rm7-x4gm",
"modified": "2020-08-31T18:09:18Z",
"published": "2019-06-03T17:28:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-9238"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vdemedes/secure-compare/pull/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vadimdemedes/secure-compare/commit/dd1ff1ac0122de7e0af4f00c61ed73261062394a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.npmjs.com/advisories/50"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Insecure Comparison in secure-compare"
}
GHSA-HCGC-HFP6-58V4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-25 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-26 18:33ML-KEM-1024 x64 AVX2 implicit rejection failure in the Fujisaki-Okamoto transform breaks IND-CCA2 security, allowing decapsulation to deviate from the implicit-rejection behavior required by the standard. The AVX2 constant-time ciphertext comparison used during decapsulation never compared the final 32-byte block of the 1568-byte ML-KEM-1024 ciphertext, so a ciphertext manipulated only in those final bytes would compare as equal and decapsulation returned the real shared secret instead of performing the required implicit rejection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-10097"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327",
"CWE-697"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-25T20:17:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "ML-KEM-1024 x64 AVX2 implicit rejection failure in the Fujisaki-Okamoto transform breaks IND-CCA2 security, allowing decapsulation to deviate from the implicit-rejection behavior required by the standard. The AVX2 constant-time ciphertext comparison used during decapsulation never compared the final 32-byte block of the 1568-byte ML-KEM-1024 ciphertext, so a ciphertext manipulated only in those final bytes would compare as equal and decapsulation returned the real shared secret instead of performing the required implicit rejection.",
"id": "GHSA-hcgc-hfp6-58v4",
"modified": "2026-06-26T18:33:50Z",
"published": "2026-06-25T21:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-10097"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/10430"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wolfssl.com/docs/security-vulnerabilities"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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"
}
]
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-10: Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables.
CAPEC-120: Double Encoding
The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.
CAPEC-14: Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
This type of attack exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in targeted client software through injection of malicious content from a custom-built hostile service. This hostile service is created to deliver the correct content to the client software. For example, if the client-side application is a browser, the service will host a webpage that the browser loads.
CAPEC-15: Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
CAPEC-182: Flash Injection
An attacker tricks a victim to execute malicious flash content that executes commands or makes flash calls specified by the attacker. One example of this attack is cross-site flashing, an attacker controlled parameter to a reference call loads from content specified by the attacker.
CAPEC-24: Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
In this attack, the idea is to cause an active filter to fail by causing an oversized transaction. An attacker may try to feed overly long input strings to the program in an attempt to overwhelm the filter (by causing a buffer overflow) and hoping that the filter does not fail securely (i.e. the user input is let into the system unfiltered).
CAPEC-267: Leverage Alternate Encoding
An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard.
CAPEC-3: Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters
Some APIs will strip certain leading characters from a string of parameters. An adversary can intentionally introduce leading "ghost" characters (extra characters that don't affect the validity of the request at the API layer) that enable the input to pass the filters and therefore process the adversary's input. This occurs when the targeted API will accept input data in several syntactic forms and interpret it in the equivalent semantic way, while the filter does not take into account the full spectrum of the syntactic forms acceptable to the targeted API.
CAPEC-41: Using Meta-characters in E-mail Headers to Inject Malicious Payloads
This type of attack involves an attacker leveraging meta-characters in email headers to inject improper behavior into email programs. Email software has become increasingly sophisticated and feature-rich. In addition, email applications are ubiquitous and connected directly to the Web making them ideal targets to launch and propagate attacks. As the user demand for new functionality in email applications grows, they become more like browsers with complex rendering and plug in routines. As more email functionality is included and abstracted from the user, this creates opportunities for attackers. Virtually all email applications do not list email header information by default, however the email header contains valuable attacker vectors for the attacker to exploit particularly if the behavior of the email client application is known. Meta-characters are hidden from the user, but can contain scripts, enumerations, probes, and other attacks against the user's system.
CAPEC-43: Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
CAPEC-44: Overflow Binary Resource File
An attack of this type exploits a buffer overflow vulnerability in the handling of binary resources. Binary resources may include music files like MP3, image files like JPEG files, and any other binary file. These attacks may pass unnoticed to the client machine through normal usage of files, such as a browser loading a seemingly innocent JPEG file. This can allow the adversary access to the execution stack and execute arbitrary code in the target process.
CAPEC-45: Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking.
CAPEC-46: Overflow Variables and Tags
This type of attack leverages the use of tags or variables from a formatted configuration data to cause buffer overflow. The adversary crafts a malicious HTML page or configuration file that includes oversized strings, thus causing an overflow.
CAPEC-47: Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
In this attack, the target software is given input that the adversary knows will be modified and expanded in size during processing. This attack relies on the target software failing to anticipate that the expanded data may exceed some internal limit, thereby creating a buffer overflow.
CAPEC-52: Embedding NULL Bytes
An adversary embeds one or more null bytes in input to the target software. This attack relies on the usage of a null-valued byte as a string terminator in many environments. The goal is for certain components of the target software to stop processing the input when it encounters the null byte(s).
CAPEC-53: Postfix, Null Terminate, and Backslash
If a string is passed through a filter of some kind, then a terminal NULL may not be valid. Using alternate representation of NULL allows an adversary to embed the NULL mid-string while postfixing the proper data so that the filter is avoided. One example is a filter that looks for a trailing slash character. If a string insertion is possible, but the slash must exist, an alternate encoding of NULL in mid-string may be used.
CAPEC-6: Argument Injection
An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-67: String Format Overflow in syslog()
This attack targets applications and software that uses the syslog() function insecurely. If an application does not explicitely use a format string parameter in a call to syslog(), user input can be placed in the format string parameter leading to a format string injection attack. Adversaries can then inject malicious format string commands into the function call leading to a buffer overflow. There are many reported software vulnerabilities with the root cause being a misuse of the syslog() function.
CAPEC-7: Blind SQL Injection
Blind SQL Injection results from an insufficient mitigation for SQL Injection. Although suppressing database error messages are considered best practice, the suppression alone is not sufficient to prevent SQL Injection. Blind SQL Injection is a form of SQL Injection that overcomes the lack of error messages. Without the error messages that facilitate SQL Injection, the adversary constructs input strings that probe the target through simple Boolean SQL expressions. The adversary can determine if the syntax and structure of the injection was successful based on whether the query was executed or not. Applied iteratively, the adversary determines how and where the target is vulnerable to SQL Injection.
CAPEC-71: Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
CAPEC-73: User-Controlled Filename
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
CAPEC-78: Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
CAPEC-79: Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.
CAPEC-8: Buffer Overflow in an API Call
This attack targets libraries or shared code modules which are vulnerable to buffer overflow attacks. An adversary who has knowledge of known vulnerable libraries or shared code can easily target software that makes use of these libraries. All clients that make use of the code library thus become vulnerable by association. This has a very broad effect on security across a system, usually affecting more than one software process.
CAPEC-80: Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
CAPEC-88: OS Command Injection
In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.
CAPEC-9: Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
This attack targets command-line utilities available in a number of shells. An adversary can leverage a vulnerability found in a command-line utility to escalate privilege to root.
CAPEC-92: Forced Integer Overflow
This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code.