Search Results (2021 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2026-5894 4 Apple, Google, Linux and 1 more 4 Macos, Chrome, Linux Kernel and 1 more 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
Inappropriate implementation in PDF in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
CVE-2026-3446 1 Python 1 Cpython 2026-04-15 5.3 Medium
When calling base64.b64decode() or related functions the decoding process would stop after encountering the first padded quad regardless of whether there was more information to be processed. This can lead to data being accepted which may be processed differently by other implementations. Use "validate=True" to enable stricter processing of base64 data.
CVE-2026-39395 1 Sigstore 1 Cosign 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
Cosign provides code signing and transparency for containers and binaries. Prior to 3.0.6 and 2.6.3, cosign verify-blob-attestation may erroneously report a "Verified OK" result for attestations with malformed payloads or mismatched predicate types. For old-format bundles and detached signatures, this was due to a logic flaw in the error handling of the predicate type validation. For new-format bundles, the predicate type validation was bypassed completely. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.0.6 and 2.6.3.
CVE-2026-32614 1 Emmansun 1 Gmsm 2026-04-15 7.5 High
Go ShangMi (Commercial Cryptography) Library (GMSM) is a cryptographic library that covers the Chinese commercial cryptographic public algorithms SM2/SM3/SM4/SM9/ZUC. Prior to 0.41.1, the current SM9 decryption implementation contains an infinity-point ciphertext forgery vulnerability. The root cause is that, during decryption, the elliptic-curve point C1 in the ciphertext is only deserialized and checked to be on the curve, but the implementation does not explicitly reject the point at infinity. In the current implementation, an attacker can construct C1 as the point at infinity, causing the bilinear pairing result to degenerate into the identity element in the GT group. As a result, a critical part of the key derivation input becomes a predictable constant. An attacker who only knows the target user's UID can derive the decryption key material and then forge a ciphertext that passes the integrity check. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.41.1.
CVE-2025-47934 1 Openpgpjs 1 Openpgpjs 2026-04-15 N/A
OpenPGP.js is a JavaScript implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. Startinf in version 5.0.1 and prior to versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1, a maliciously modified message can be passed to either `openpgp.verify` or `openpgp.decrypt`, causing these functions to return a valid signature verification result while returning data that was not actually signed. This flaw allows signature verifications of inline (non-detached) signed messages (using `openpgp.verify`) and signed-and-encrypted messages (using `openpgp.decrypt` with `verificationKeys`) to be spoofed, since both functions return extracted data that may not match the data that was originally signed. Detached signature verifications are not affected, as no signed data is returned in that case. In order to spoof a message, the attacker needs a single valid message signature (inline or detached) as well as the plaintext data that was legitimately signed, and can then construct an inline-signed message or signed-and-encrypted message with any data of the attacker's choice, which will appear as legitimately signed by affected versions of OpenPGP.js. In other words, any inline-signed message can be modified to return any other data (while still indicating that the signature was valid), and the same is true for signed+encrypted messages if the attacker can obtain a valid signature and encrypt a new message (of the attacker's choice) together with that signature. The issue has been patched in versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1. Some workarounds are available. When verifying inline-signed messages, extract the message and signature(s) from the message returned by `openpgp.readMessage`, and verify the(/each) signature as a detached signature by passing the signature and a new message containing only the data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. When decrypting and verifying signed+encrypted messages, decrypt and verify the message in two steps, by first calling `openpgp.decrypt` without `verificationKeys`, and then passing the returned signature(s) and a new message containing the decrypted data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`.
CVE-2025-30064 1 Cgm 1 Clininet 2026-04-15 N/A
An insufficiently secured internal function allows session generation for arbitrary users. The decodeParam function checks the JWT but does not verify which signing algorithm was used. As a result, an attacker can use the "ex:action" parameter in the VerifyUserByThrustedService function to generate a session for any user.
CVE-2025-4371 2026-04-15 6.8 Medium
A potential vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo 510 FHD and Performance FHD web cameras that could allow an attacker with physical access to write arbitrary firmware updates to the device over a USB connection.
CVE-2025-52556 2026-04-15 N/A
rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue.
CVE-2025-40780 1 Isc 1 Bind 9 2026-04-15 8.6 High
In specific circumstances, due to a weakness in the Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG) that is used, it is possible for an attacker to predict the source port and query ID that BIND will use. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.16.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.39, 9.20.0 through 9.20.13, 9.21.0 through 9.21.12, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.39-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.13-S1.
CVE-2025-27813 2026-04-15 8.1 High
MSI Center before 2.0.52.0 has Missing PE Signature Validation.
CVE-2025-59160 1 Matrix-org 1 Matrix-js-sdk 2026-04-15 N/A
Matrix JavaScript SDK is a Matrix Client-Server SDK for JavaScript and TypeScript. matrix-js-sdk before 38.2.0 has insufficient validation of room predecessor links in MatrixClient::getJoinedRooms, allowing a remote attacker to attempt to replace a tombstoned room with an unrelated attacker-supplied room. The issue has been patched and users should upgrade to 38.2.0. A workaround is to avoid using MatrixClient::getJoinedRooms in favor of getRooms() and filtering upgraded rooms separately.
CVE-2022-33861 1 Eaton 1 Intelligent Power Protector 2026-04-15 5.1 Medium
IPP software versions prior to v1.71 do not sufficiently verify the authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
CVE-2025-53548 2026-04-15 7.5 High
Clerk helps developers build user management. Applications that use the verifyWebhook() helper to verify incoming Clerk webhooks are susceptible to accepting improperly signed webhook events. The issue was resolved in @clerk/backend 2.4.0.
CVE-2025-61740 1 Johnsoncontrols 5 Iq Panels2, Iq Panels2+, Iqhub and 2 more 2026-04-15 N/A
Authentication issue that does not verify the source of a packet which could allow an attacker to create a denial-of-service condition or modify the configuration of the device.
CVE-2024-36347 2026-04-15 6.4 Medium
Improper signature verification in AMD CPU ROM microcode patch loader may allow an attacker with local administrator privilege to load malicious microcode, potentially resulting in loss of integrity of x86 instruction execution, loss of confidentiality and integrity of data in x86 CPU privileged context and compromise of SMM execution environment.
CVE-2025-47149 2026-04-15 N/A
The optional feature 'Anti-Virus & Sandbox' of i-FILTER contains an issue with improper pattern file validation. If exploited, the product may treat an unauthorized pattern file as an authorized. If the product uses a specially crafted pattern file, information in the server where the product is running may be retrieved, and/or cause a denial of service (DoS) condition.
CVE-2025-40933 2026-04-15 7.5 High
Apache::AuthAny::Cookie v0.201 or earlier for Perl generates session ids insecurely. Session ids are generated using an MD5 hash of the epoch time and a call to the built-in rand function. The epoch time may be guessed, if it is not leaked from the HTTP Date header. The built-in rand function is unsuitable for cryptographic usage. Predicable session ids could allow an attacker to gain access to systems.
CVE-2024-41924 1 Ec-cube 1 Ec-cube 2026-04-15 7.2 High
Acceptance of extraneous untrusted data with trusted data vulnerability exists in EC-CUBE 4 series. If this vulnerability is exploited, an attacker who obtained the administrative privilege may install an arbitrary PHP package. If the obsolete versions of PHP packages are installed, the product may be affected by some known vulnerabilities.
CVE-2025-27498 2026-04-15 N/A
aes-gcm is a pure Rust implementation of the AES-GCM. In decrypt_in_place_detached, the decrypted ciphertext (which is the correct ciphertext) is exposed even if the tag is incorrect. This is because in decrypt_inplace in asconcore.rs, tag verification causes an error to be returned with the plaintext contents still in buffer. The vulnerability is fixed in 0.4.3.
CVE-2025-54369 1 Node-saml 1 Node-saml 2026-04-15 N/A
Node-SAML is a SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In versions 5.0.1 and below, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. This issue is fixed in version 5.1.0.