CWE-345
DiscouragedInsufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
933 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-J827-V44F-FW4P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-30 00:00 – Updated: 2025-10-22 00:32An arbitrary file upload vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex Central could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to upload an arbitrary file which could lead to remote code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-26871"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-434"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-29T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An arbitrary file upload vulnerability in Trend Micro Apex Central could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to upload an arbitrary file which could lead to remote code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-j827-v44f-fw4p",
"modified": "2025-10-22T00:32:31Z",
"published": "2022-03-30T00:00:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-26871"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://appweb.trendmicro.com/supportNews/NewsDetail.aspx?id=4435"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/vu/JVNVU99107357"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/jp/solution/000290660"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://success.trendmicro.com/solution/000290678"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2022-26871"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jpcert.or.jp/english/at/2022/at220008.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-J8W7-PMFX-JM24
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:03 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:03Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in Nagios Fusion 4.1.8 and earlier and Nagios XI 5.7.5 and earlier allows for Escalation of Privileges or Code Execution as root via vectors related to an untrusted update package to upgrade_to_latest.sh.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-28900"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-24T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in Nagios Fusion 4.1.8 and earlier and Nagios XI 5.7.5 and earlier allows for Escalation of Privileges or Code Execution as root via vectors related to an untrusted update package to upgrade_to_latest.sh.",
"id": "GHSA-j8w7-pmfx-jm24",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:03:05Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:03:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-28900"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://skylightcyber.com/2021/05/20/13-nagios-vulnerabilities-7-will-shock-you"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.nagios.com/downloads/nagios-xi/change-log"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/162783/Nagios-XI-Fusion-Privilege-Escalation-Cross-Site-Scripting-Code-Execution.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-J8WJ-77MV-262G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-15 21:30 – Updated: 2022-12-20 18:30RSFirewall tries to identify the original IP address by looking at different HTTP headers. A bypass is possible due to the way it is implemented.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-4226"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-15T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "RSFirewall tries to identify the original IP address by looking at different HTTP headers. A bypass is possible due to the way it is implemented.",
"id": "GHSA-j8wj-77mv-262g",
"modified": "2022-12-20T18:30:20Z",
"published": "2022-12-15T21:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-4226"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/c0ed80c8-ebbf-4ed9-b02f-31660097c352"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JC38-X7X8-2XC8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 21:09 – Updated: 2026-07-06 16:29Summary
JWSVerifier::getAlgorithm() in src/Library/Signature/JWSVerifier.php (line 144) merges protected and unprotected headers using PHP's spread operator:
$completeHeader = [...$signature->getProtectedHeader(), ...$signature->getHeader()];
In PHP, when spreading arrays with duplicate string keys, the last array's values take precedence. Since the unprotected header (getHeader()) is spread second, an attacker can override the integrity-protected alg parameter by placing a different value in the unprotected header.
This creates a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability:
1. HeaderCheckerManager validates alg from the protected header
2. JWSVerifier uses alg from the unprotected header for actual verification
The same issue exists in JWEDecrypter.php (lines 120-124) where array_merge() exhibits the same last-wins behavior for alg and enc.
Affected Code
JWSVerifier.php line 144 — Spread operator merge order allows unprotected header to override alg:
$completeHeader = [...$signature->getProtectedHeader(), ...$signature->getHeader()];
JWEDecrypter.php lines 120-124 — array_merge() with same last-wins behavior:
$completeHeader = array_merge(
$jwe->getSharedProtectedHeader(),
$jwe->getSharedHeader(),
$recipient->getHeader()
);
Attack Vectors
Vector A — Mixed key sets (HIGH probability)
If the application uses a JWKSet containing keys of different types (common in multi-tenant or federation scenarios), the JWSVerifier iterates all keys (line 86). An attacker can force a different algorithm that matches a different key in the set.
Vector B — alg ONLY in unprotected header (HIGH probability)
If alg is placed EXCLUSIVELY in the unprotected header (not in the protected header at all), HeaderCheckerManager::checkDuplicatedHeaderParameters() does NOT trigger. The JSON Flattened/General serializers allow tokens with no protected header or a protected header without alg. RFC 7515 Section 4.1.1 states alg MUST be integrity-protected, but the library does not enforce this.
Vector C — Direct JWSVerifier usage (HIGH probability)
JWSLoader takes ?HeaderCheckerManager (nullable). If developers use JWSVerifier directly or create JWSLoader without a HeaderCheckerManager, the duplicate header check never runs.
Contrast with JWSBuilder (safe)
JWSBuilder::findSignatureAlgorithm() (line 196) uses [...$header, ...$protectedHeader] where protected wins. It also has checkDuplicatedHeaderParameters() (line 218). The JWSVerifier has neither safeguard.
Proof of Concept
<?php
// Demonstrate algorithm override via unprotected header
$protected = ["alg" => "RS256", "typ" => "JWT"];
$unprotected = ["alg" => "HS256"];
$merged = [...$protected, ...$unprotected];
// $merged["alg"] === "HS256" — unprotected wins!
// JSON Flattened JWS with algorithm override:
$maliciousJws = json_encode([
'payload' => base64url_encode($payload),
'protected' => base64url_encode('{"alg":"RS256"}'),
'header' => ['alg' => 'HS256'], // OVERRIDE
'signature' => base64url_encode($sig),
]);
// HeaderCheckerManager validates RS256 from protected header -> PASS
// JWSVerifier uses HS256 from unprotected header -> attacker's algorithm choice
A full working PoC demonstrating HS512-to-HS256 downgrade with mixed keysets is available upon request.
Suggested Fix
In JWSVerifier::getAlgorithm(), read alg exclusively from the protected header:
private function getAlgorithm(Signature $signature): Algorithm
{
$protectedHeader = $signature->getProtectedHeader();
if (! isset($protectedHeader['alg'])) {
throw new InvalidArgumentException('The "alg" parameter must be in the protected header.');
}
return $this->signatureAlgorithmManager->get($protectedHeader['alg']);
}
For JWEDecrypter, reverse the merge order so protected header wins, or extract alg/enc exclusively from the protected header.
Résolution
Un correctif a été préparé sur une branche dédiée basée sur 3.4.x, avec des tests anti-régression dédiés (fork privé temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1).
JWS algorithm confusion — JWSVerifier lit le paramètre alg exclusivement dans le header protégé en intégrité (RFC 7515 §4.1.1) ; un alg placé dans le header non protégé ne peut plus surcharger l'algorithme signé.
Validation : php -l OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (différentiel nul vs 3.4.x), aucun commentaire ajouté dans le code source. Après merge, cascade prévue 3.4.x → 4.0.x → 4.1.x.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-library"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-library"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-library"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-bundle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-bundle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-bundle"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-experimental"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-experimental"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-experimental"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.0.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "web-token/jwt-framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T21:09:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n`JWSVerifier::getAlgorithm()` in `src/Library/Signature/JWSVerifier.php` (line 144) merges protected and unprotected headers using PHP\u0027s spread operator:\n\n```php\n$completeHeader = [...$signature-\u003egetProtectedHeader(), ...$signature-\u003egetHeader()];\n```\n\nIn PHP, when spreading arrays with duplicate string keys, the **last array\u0027s values take precedence**. Since the unprotected header (`getHeader()`) is spread second, an attacker can override the integrity-protected `alg` parameter by placing a different value in the unprotected header.\n\nThis creates a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability:\n1. `HeaderCheckerManager` validates `alg` from the **protected** header\n2. `JWSVerifier` uses `alg` from the **unprotected** header for actual verification\n\nThe same issue exists in `JWEDecrypter.php` (lines 120-124) where `array_merge()` exhibits the same last-wins behavior for `alg` and `enc`.\n\n## Affected Code\n\n**JWSVerifier.php line 144** \u2014 Spread operator merge order allows unprotected header to override `alg`:\n```php\n$completeHeader = [...$signature-\u003egetProtectedHeader(), ...$signature-\u003egetHeader()];\n```\n\n**JWEDecrypter.php lines 120-124** \u2014 `array_merge()` with same last-wins behavior:\n```php\n$completeHeader = array_merge(\n $jwe-\u003egetSharedProtectedHeader(),\n $jwe-\u003egetSharedHeader(),\n $recipient-\u003egetHeader()\n);\n```\n\n## Attack Vectors\n\n### Vector A \u2014 Mixed key sets (HIGH probability)\nIf the application uses a JWKSet containing keys of different types (common in multi-tenant or federation scenarios), the JWSVerifier iterates all keys (line 86). An attacker can force a different algorithm that matches a different key in the set.\n\n### Vector B \u2014 alg ONLY in unprotected header (HIGH probability)\nIf `alg` is placed EXCLUSIVELY in the unprotected header (not in the protected header at all), `HeaderCheckerManager::checkDuplicatedHeaderParameters()` does NOT trigger. The JSON Flattened/General serializers allow tokens with no protected header or a protected header without `alg`. RFC 7515 Section 4.1.1 states `alg` MUST be integrity-protected, but the library does not enforce this.\n\n### Vector C \u2014 Direct JWSVerifier usage (HIGH probability)\n`JWSLoader` takes `?HeaderCheckerManager` (nullable). If developers use `JWSVerifier` directly or create `JWSLoader` without a `HeaderCheckerManager`, the duplicate header check never runs.\n\n## Contrast with JWSBuilder (safe)\n\n`JWSBuilder::findSignatureAlgorithm()` (line 196) uses `[...$header, ...$protectedHeader]` where protected wins. It also has `checkDuplicatedHeaderParameters()` (line 218). The JWSVerifier has **neither** safeguard.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```php\n\u003c?php\n// Demonstrate algorithm override via unprotected header\n$protected = [\"alg\" =\u003e \"RS256\", \"typ\" =\u003e \"JWT\"];\n$unprotected = [\"alg\" =\u003e \"HS256\"];\n$merged = [...$protected, ...$unprotected];\n// $merged[\"alg\"] === \"HS256\" \u2014 unprotected wins!\n\n// JSON Flattened JWS with algorithm override:\n$maliciousJws = json_encode([\n \u0027payload\u0027 =\u003e base64url_encode($payload),\n \u0027protected\u0027 =\u003e base64url_encode(\u0027{\"alg\":\"RS256\"}\u0027),\n \u0027header\u0027 =\u003e [\u0027alg\u0027 =\u003e \u0027HS256\u0027], // OVERRIDE\n \u0027signature\u0027 =\u003e base64url_encode($sig),\n]);\n// HeaderCheckerManager validates RS256 from protected header -\u003e PASS\n// JWSVerifier uses HS256 from unprotected header -\u003e attacker\u0027s algorithm choice\n```\n\nA full working PoC demonstrating HS512-to-HS256 downgrade with mixed keysets is available upon request.\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nIn `JWSVerifier::getAlgorithm()`, read `alg` exclusively from the protected header:\n\n```php\nprivate function getAlgorithm(Signature $signature): Algorithm\n{\n $protectedHeader = $signature-\u003egetProtectedHeader();\n if (! isset($protectedHeader[\u0027alg\u0027])) {\n throw new InvalidArgumentException(\u0027The \"alg\" parameter must be in the protected header.\u0027);\n }\n return $this-\u003esignatureAlgorithmManager-\u003eget($protectedHeader[\u0027alg\u0027]);\n}\n```\n\nFor `JWEDecrypter`, reverse the merge order so protected header wins, or extract `alg`/`enc` exclusively from the protected header.\n\n## R\u00e9solution\n\nUn correctif a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9 sur une branche d\u00e9di\u00e9e bas\u00e9e sur `3.4.x`, avec des tests anti-r\u00e9gression d\u00e9di\u00e9s (fork priv\u00e9 temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1).\n\n**JWS algorithm confusion** \u2014 `JWSVerifier` lit le param\u00e8tre `alg` exclusivement dans le header prot\u00e9g\u00e9 en int\u00e9grit\u00e9 (RFC 7515 \u00a74.1.1) ; un `alg` plac\u00e9 dans le header non prot\u00e9g\u00e9 ne peut plus surcharger l\u0027algorithme sign\u00e9.\n\n**Validation :** `php -l` OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (diff\u00e9rentiel nul vs `3.4.x`), aucun commentaire ajout\u00e9 dans le code source. Apr\u00e8s merge, cascade pr\u00e9vue `3.4.x \u2192 4.0.x \u2192 4.1.x`.",
"id": "GHSA-jc38-x7x8-2xc8",
"modified": "2026-07-06T16:29:56Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T21:09:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework/security/advisories/GHSA-jc38-x7x8-2xc8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/web-token/jwt-library/GHSA-jc38-x7x8-2xc8.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/web-token/jwt-framework"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "PHP JWT Framework: JWSVerifier uses algorithm from unprotected header, enabling algorithm confusion attacks"
}
GHSA-JCQ2-WPV8-87H7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-03-13 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:32The EventPrime – Events Calendar, Bookings and Tickets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to payment bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.4.2. This is due to the plugin allowing unauthenticated users to update the status of order payments. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to book events for free.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-1321"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-03-13T16:15:19Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The EventPrime \u2013 Events Calendar, Bookings and Tickets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to payment bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.4.2. This is due to the plugin allowing unauthenticated users to update the status of order payments. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to book events for free.",
"id": "GHSA-jcq2-wpv8-87h7",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:32:45Z",
"published": "2024-03-13T18:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1321"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3033882%40eventprime-event-calendar-management\u0026new=3033882%40eventprime-event-calendar-management\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/765d0933-8db2-471c-ad4e-e19d3b4ff015?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-JFJ4-X686-G8VV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:33 – Updated: 2022-10-21 19:01PackageKit's apt backend mistakenly treated all local debs as trusted. The apt security model is based on repository trust and not on the contents of individual files. On sites with configured PolicyKit rules this may allow users to install malicious packages.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-16122"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-11-07T04:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "PackageKit\u0027s apt backend mistakenly treated all local debs as trusted. The apt security model is based on repository trust and not on the contents of individual files. On sites with configured PolicyKit rules this may allow users to install malicious packages.",
"id": "GHSA-jfj4-x686-g8vv",
"modified": "2022-10-21T19:01:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:33:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-16122"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/packagekit/+bug/1882098"
}
],
"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-JFRH-RP29-7J36
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:09 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:09A component of the HarmonyOS has a Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability. Local attackers may exploit this vulnerability to cause persistent dos.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-22419"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-03T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A component of the HarmonyOS has a Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability. Local attackers may exploit this vulnerability to cause persistent dos.",
"id": "GHSA-jfrh-rp29-7j36",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:09:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:09:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22419"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://device.harmonyos.com/cn/docs/security/update/oem_security_update_phone_202106-0000001165452077"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-JGG9-RW32-44PJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-14 20:15 – Updated: 2026-06-09 10:19Impact
Persistent local-pty code execution via imported bookmarks or compromised sync targets. Affects users who import bookmark JSON files or who have electerm sync configured (gist/WebDAV). The attacker can inject exec* fields or global config to cause remote code to run when a bookmark is opened or when sync is applied.
Patches
Not yet
Workarounds
- Do not import unsafe data
References
- Report / credit: https://github.com/Curly-Haired-Baboon
- Electerm releases: https://github.com/electerm/electerm/releases
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "electerm"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "3.8.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45058"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-494",
"CWE-915",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-14T20:15:42Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-28T18:16:34Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "### Impact\n_Persistent local-pty code execution via imported bookmarks or compromised sync targets. Affects users who import bookmark JSON files or who have electerm sync configured (gist/WebDAV). The attacker can inject `exec*` fields or global config to cause remote code to run when a bookmark is opened or when sync is applied._\n\n### Patches\n\nNot yet\n\n### Workarounds\n- Do not import unsafe data\n\n### References\n- Report / credit: https://github.com/Curly-Haired-Baboon\n- Electerm releases: https://github.com/electerm/electerm/releases",
"id": "GHSA-jgg9-rw32-44pj",
"modified": "2026-06-09T10:19:27Z",
"published": "2026-05-14T20:15:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/electerm/electerm/security/advisories/GHSA-jgg9-rw32-44pj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45058"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/electerm/electerm"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Electerm: Importing unsafe bookmark data could lead to unsafe operation when clicking local type bookmark"
}
GHSA-JGGH-5RMH-R6H5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-03 12:30 – Updated: 2026-05-07 22:30A security flaw has been discovered in Dolibarr ERP CRM up to 23.0.2. This vulnerability affects the function dol_verifyHash in the library htdocs/core/lib/security.lib.php of the component Online Signature Module. The manipulation results in improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack may be performed from remote. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is stated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "dolibarr/dolibarr"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "15.0.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-7689"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-07T22:30:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-03T10:16:17Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A security flaw has been discovered in Dolibarr ERP CRM up to 23.0.2. This vulnerability affects the function dol_verifyHash in the library htdocs/core/lib/security.lib.php of the component Online Signature Module. The manipulation results in improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack may be performed from remote. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is stated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-jggh-5rmh-r6h5",
"modified": "2026-05-07T22:30:07Z",
"published": "2026-05-03T12:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-7689"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/Shaon-Xis/d6ae069fc54f006457b68a91d5a8e158"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Dolibarr/dolibarr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/801794"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/360859"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/360859/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Dolibarr has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity "
}
GHSA-JGP8-HJ42-F7F6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-22 00:01 – Updated: 2022-06-22 00:01An unauthenticated, remote attacker could upload malicious logic to the devices based on ProConOS/ProConOS eCLR in order to gain full control over the device.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31801"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-21T08:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An unauthenticated, remote attacker could upload malicious logic to the devices based on ProConOS/ProConOS eCLR in order to gain full control over the device.",
"id": "GHSA-jgp8-hj42-f7f6",
"modified": "2022-06-22T00:01:01Z",
"published": "2022-06-22T00:01:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31801"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.vde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2022-026"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.