ghsa-c53x-x7fc-9vrp
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-05-14 03:46
Modified
2022-05-14 03:46
Severity ?
Details
An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. Signature spoofing is possible because the UI does not properly distinguish between an attachment signature, and a signature that applies to the entire containing message, aka TBE-01-021. This is demonstrated by an e-mail message with an attachment that is a signed e-mail message in message/rfc822 format.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2017-17847" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-347" ], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2017-12-27T17:08:00Z", "severity": "HIGH" }, "details": "An issue was discovered in Enigmail before 1.9.9. Signature spoofing is possible because the UI does not properly distinguish between an attachment signature, and a signature that applies to the entire containing message, aka TBE-01-021. This is demonstrated by an e-mail message with an attachment that is a signed e-mail message in message/rfc822 format.", "id": "GHSA-c53x-x7fc-9vrp", "modified": "2022-05-14T03:46:15Z", "published": "2022-05-14T03:46:15Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-17847" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://enigmail.net/download/other/Enigmail%20Pentest%20Report%20by%20Cure53%20-%20Excerpt.pdf" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2017/12/msg00021.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2017/msg00333.html" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://sourceforge.net/p/enigmail/bugs/709" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-4070" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://www.mail-archive.com/enigmail-users@enigmail.net/msg04280.html" } ], "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" } ] }
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.