CWE-345
DiscouragedInsufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
939 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-H6C8-CWW8-35HF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-26 17:21 – Updated: 2026-03-27 21:30Description
In OpenFGA, under specific conditions, models using conditions with caching enabled can result in two different check requests producing the same cache key. This can result in OpenFGA reusing an earlier cached result for a different request.
Am I Affected?
Users are affected if the following preconditions are met: 1. The model has relations which rely on condition evaluation. 1. Caching is enabled.
Fix
Upgrade to OpenFGA v1.13.1.
Acknowledgement
OpenFGA would like to thank @Amemoyoi for the discovery and responsible disclosure.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.13.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-33729"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1289",
"CWE-20",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-26T17:21:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-27T01:16:20Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Description\nIn OpenFGA, under specific conditions, models using conditions with caching enabled can result in two different check requests producing the same cache key. This can result in OpenFGA reusing an earlier cached result for a different request.\n\n### Am I Affected?\nUsers are affected if the following preconditions are met:\n1. The model has relations which rely on condition evaluation.\n1. Caching is enabled.\n\n### Fix\nUpgrade to OpenFGA v1.13.1.\n\n### Acknowledgement\nOpenFGA would like to thank @Amemoyoi for the discovery and responsible disclosure.",
"id": "GHSA-h6c8-cww8-35hf",
"modified": "2026-03-27T21:30:41Z",
"published": "2026-03-26T17:21:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-h6c8-cww8-35hf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33729"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/commit/049b50ccd2cc7e163bd897f3d17a7b859ad146f8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openfga/openfga/releases/tag/v1.13.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenFGA has an Authorization Bypass through cached keys"
}
GHSA-H79M-9724-RW92
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-02 00:01 – Updated: 2022-09-10 00:00HashiCorp Boundary up to 0.10.1 did not properly perform data integrity checks to ensure the resources were associated with the correct scopes, allowing potential privilege escalation for authorized users of another scope. Fixed in Boundary 0.10.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36130"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-01T02:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "HashiCorp Boundary up to 0.10.1 did not properly perform data integrity checks to ensure the resources were associated with the correct scopes, allowing potential privilege escalation for authorized users of another scope. Fixed in Boundary 0.10.2.",
"id": "GHSA-h79m-9724-rw92",
"modified": "2022-09-10T00:00:31Z",
"published": "2022-09-02T00:01:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36130"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2022017-boundary-allowed-access-to-host-sets-and-credential-sources-for-authorized-users-of-another-scope/43493"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H84F-X5FQ-F87C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-21 18:31 – Updated: 2024-06-21 18:31Use of Less Trusted Source vulnerability in SolidWP Solid Security allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects Solid Security: from n/a through 9.3.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-44593"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-348"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-21T16:15:11Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Use of Less Trusted Source vulnerability in SolidWP Solid Security allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects Solid Security: from n/a through 9.3.1.",
"id": "GHSA-h84f-x5fq-f87c",
"modified": "2024-06-21T18:31:00Z",
"published": "2024-06-21T18:31:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-44593"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/better-wp-security/wordpress-solid-security-plugin-9-3-1-ip-spoofing-leading-to-denial-of-service-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-H8VM-XJCH-3JWX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-24 09:30 – Updated: 2025-08-24 09:30A vulnerability was determined in Belkin AX1800 1.1.00.016. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Firmware Update Handler. This manipulation causes insufficient verification of data authenticity. The attack can be initiated remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9379"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-24T07:15:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was determined in Belkin AX1800 1.1.00.016. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Firmware Update Handler. This manipulation causes insufficient verification of data authenticity. The attack can be initiated remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.",
"id": "GHSA-h8vm-xjch-3jwx",
"modified": "2025-08-24T09:30:19Z",
"published": "2025-08-24T09:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9379"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/IOTRes/IOT_Firmware_Update/blob/main/Belkin/AX1800.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.321212"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.321212"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.628641"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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"
}
]
}
GHSA-H97M-27FX-42RX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-04 14:50 – Updated: 2026-06-04 14:50Impact
The message edit validation logic in the matrix-sdk-ui crate before 0.16.1 is missing a check: when replacing an encrypted event, the replacement event itself is not required to be encrypted. This enables a malicious homeserver administrator (or an actor with equivalent power) to impersonate or spoof messages as if they were sent by a victim user.
Patches
matrix-sdk-ui 0.16.1 fixes the message edit validation logic to align with the algorithm for replacement events^1 described in the Matrix specification.
Workarounds
N/A
References
- Pull request: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/pull/6454
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please email us at security at matrix.org.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "matrix-sdk-ui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.16.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-45057"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-04T14:50:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe message edit validation logic in the `matrix-sdk-ui` crate before 0.16.1 is missing a check: when replacing an encrypted event, the replacement event itself is not required to be encrypted. This enables a malicious homeserver administrator (or an actor with equivalent power) to impersonate or spoof messages as if they were sent by a victim user.\n\n### Patches\n`matrix-sdk-ui` 0.16.1 fixes the message edit validation logic to align with the algorithm for replacement events[^1] described in the Matrix specification.\n\n### Workarounds\nN/A\n\n### References\n* Pull request: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/pull/6454\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, please email us at [security at matrix.org](mailto:security@matrix.org).\n\n[^1]: https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/client-server-api/#validity-of-replacement-events",
"id": "GHSA-h97m-27fx-42rx",
"modified": "2026-06-04T14:50:47Z",
"published": "2026-06-04T14:50:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/security/advisories/GHSA-h97m-27fx-42rx"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/pull/6454"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/releases/tag/matrix-sdk-0.16.1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0158.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "matrix-sdk-ui: Incomplete edit validation"
}
GHSA-H9CX-XJG6-5V2W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-10 20:18 – Updated: 2026-04-10 20:18Impact
The gcr Receiver type in Flux notification-controller does not validate the email claim of Google OIDC tokens used for Pub/Sub push authentication. This allows any valid Google-issued token, to authenticate against the Receiver webhook endpoint, triggering unauthorized Flux reconciliations.
Exploitation requires the attacker to know the Receiver's webhook URL. The webhook path is generated as /hook/sha256sum(token+name+namespace), where the token is a random string stored in a Kubernetes Secret. There is no API or endpoint that enumerates webhook URLs. An attacker cannot discover the path without either having access to the cluster and permissions to read the Receiver's .status.webhookPath in the target namespace, or obtaining the URL through other means (e.g. leaked secrets or access to Pub/Sub config).
Upon successful authentication, the controller triggers a reconciliation for all resources listed in the Receiver's .spec.resources. However, the practical impact is limited: Flux reconciliation is idempotent, so if the desired state in the configured sources (Git, OCI, Helm) has not changed, the reconciliation results in a no-op with no effect on cluster state. Additionally, Flux controllers deduplicate reconciliation requests, sending many requests in a short period results in only a single reconciliation being processed.
Patches
The fix in notification-controller v1.8.3 refactors the GCR Receiver authentication to allow users to extend the verification to email and audience claims in the JWT. This enables operators to configure their Receiver's secret with the expected GCP Service Account email and audience, which the controller will validate against the token's claims before accepting the request.
Email validation example:
apiVersion: v1
kind: Secret
metadata:
name: gcr-webhook-token
namespace: apps
type: Opaque
stringData:
token: <random token>
email: <service-account>@<project>.iam.gserviceaccount.com
audience: https://<hostname>/hook/<sha256(token+name+namespace)>
For more information, please see the GCR Receiver documentation: https://fluxcd.io/flux/components/notification/receivers/#gcr
Credits
Thanks to Saroj Khadka for reporting this issue to the Flux Security Team.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/fluxcd/notification-controller"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-40109"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-10T20:18:16Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-09T21:16:12Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nThe `gcr` Receiver type in Flux notification-controller does not validate the `email` claim of Google OIDC tokens used for Pub/Sub push authentication. This allows any valid Google-issued token, to authenticate against the Receiver webhook endpoint, triggering unauthorized Flux reconciliations.\n\nExploitation requires the attacker to know the Receiver\u0027s webhook URL. The webhook path is generated as `/hook/sha256sum(token+name+namespace)`, where the token is a random string stored in a Kubernetes Secret. There is no API or endpoint that enumerates webhook URLs. An attacker cannot discover the path without either having access to the cluster and permissions to read the Receiver\u0027s `.status.webhookPath` in the target namespace, or obtaining the URL through other means (e.g. leaked secrets or access to Pub/Sub config).\n\nUpon successful authentication, the controller triggers a reconciliation for all resources listed in the Receiver\u0027s `.spec.resources`. However, the practical impact is limited: Flux reconciliation is idempotent, so if the desired state in the configured sources (Git, OCI, Helm) has not changed, the reconciliation results in a no-op with no effect on cluster state. Additionally, Flux controllers deduplicate reconciliation requests, sending many requests in a short period results in only a single reconciliation being processed.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe fix in notification-controller v1.8.3 refactors the GCR Receiver authentication to allow users to extend the verification to `email` and `audience` claims in the JWT. This enables operators to configure their Receiver\u0027s secret with the expected GCP Service Account email and audience, which the controller will validate against the token\u0027s claims before accepting the request.\n\nEmail validation example:\n\n```yaml\napiVersion: v1\nkind: Secret\nmetadata:\n name: gcr-webhook-token\n namespace: apps\ntype: Opaque\nstringData:\n token: \u003crandom token\u003e\n email: \u003cservice-account\u003e@\u003cproject\u003e.iam.gserviceaccount.com\n audience: https://\u003chostname\u003e/hook/\u003csha256(token+name+namespace)\u003e\n```\n\nFor more information, please see the GCR Receiver documentation: https://fluxcd.io/flux/components/notification/receivers/#gcr\n\n\n### Credits\n\nThanks to Saroj Khadka for reporting this issue to the Flux Security Team.",
"id": "GHSA-h9cx-xjg6-5v2w",
"modified": "2026-04-10T20:18:16Z",
"published": "2026-04-10T20:18:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fluxcd/notification-controller/security/advisories/GHSA-h9cx-xjg6-5v2w"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-40109"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fluxcd/notification-controller/pull/1279"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/fluxcd/notification-controller"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fluxcd/notification-controller/releases/tag/v1.8.3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Flux notification-controller GCR Receiver missing email validation allows unauthorized reconciliation triggering"
}
GHSA-H9R7-CJMF-JRCG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-26 21:31 – Updated: 2025-06-26 21:31Pioneer DMH-WT7600NEX Root Filesystem Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of Pioneer DMH-WT7600NEX devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the configuration of the operating system. The issue results from the lack of properly configured protection for the root file system. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to bypass authentication on the system. Was ZDI-CAN-26077.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-5833"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-25T18:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Pioneer DMH-WT7600NEX Root Filesystem Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of Pioneer DMH-WT7600NEX devices. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the configuration of the operating system. The issue results from the lack of properly configured protection for the root file system. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to bypass authentication on the system. Was ZDI-CAN-26077.",
"id": "GHSA-h9r7-cjmf-jrcg",
"modified": "2025-06-26T21:31:13Z",
"published": "2025-06-26T21:31:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-5833"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-350"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HCCJ-9V6G-QXJV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-07 18:30 – Updated: 2024-07-03 18:44Invision Community through 4.7.16 allows remote code execution via the applications/core/modules/admin/editor/toolbar.php IPS\core\modules\admin\editor_toolbar::addPlugin() method. This method handles uploaded ZIP files that are extracted into the applications/core/interface/ckeditor/ckeditor/plugins/ directory without properly verifying their content. This can be exploited by admin users (with the toolbar_manage permission) to write arbitrary PHP files into that directory, leading to execution of arbitrary PHP code in the context of the web server user.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-30162"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-07T17:15:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Invision Community through 4.7.16 allows remote code execution via the applications/core/modules/admin/editor/toolbar.php IPS\\core\\modules\\admin\\editor\\_toolbar::addPlugin() method. This method handles uploaded ZIP files that are extracted into the applications/core/interface/ckeditor/ckeditor/plugins/ directory without properly verifying their content. This can be exploited by admin users (with the toolbar_manage permission) to write arbitrary PHP files into that directory, leading to execution of arbitrary PHP code in the context of the web server user.",
"id": "GHSA-hccj-9v6g-qxjv",
"modified": "2024-07-03T18:44:19Z",
"published": "2024-06-07T18:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-30162"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://invisioncommunity.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Apr/21"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HCHJ-55PX-FGW7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-21 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-03 18:31IEEE P802.11-REVme D1.1 through D7.0 allows FragAttacks against mesh networks. In mesh networks using Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, or WPA3) or Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), an adversary can exploit this vulnerability to inject arbitrary frames towards devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incorrect fix for CVE-2020-24588. P802.11-REVme, as of early 2025, is a planned release of the 802.11 standard.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-27558"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-21T19:16:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "IEEE P802.11-REVme D1.1 through D7.0 allows FragAttacks against mesh networks. In mesh networks using Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2, or WPA3) or Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), an adversary can exploit this vulnerability to inject arbitrary frames towards devices that support receiving non-SSP A-MSDU frames. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incorrect fix for CVE-2020-24588. P802.11-REVme, as of early 2025, is a planned release of the 802.11 standard.",
"id": "GHSA-hchj-55px-fgw7",
"modified": "2025-11-03T18:31:17Z",
"published": "2025-05-21T21:31:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-27558"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vanhoefm/fragattacks-survey-public/blob/main/README.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00008.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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-HCWR-PQ9G-RQ3M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-04 21:27 – Updated: 2026-05-13 13:42apko verifies the signature on APKINDEX.tar.gz but never compares individually downloaded .apk packages against the checksum recorded in the signed index. The checksum is parsed and available via ChecksumString(), and the downloaded package control hash is computed, but the two values are never compared in getPackageImpl(). Mismatched packages are silently accepted. An attacker who can substitute download responses (compromised mirror, HTTP repository, poisoned CDN cache) can install arbitrary packages into built images.
Fix: No fix available yet.
Acknowledgements
apko thanks Oleh Konko from 1seal for discovering and reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "chainguard.dev/apko"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.2.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-42575"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-04T21:27:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-09T20:16:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "apko verifies the signature on `APKINDEX.tar.gz` but never compares individually downloaded `.apk` packages against the checksum recorded in the signed index. The checksum is parsed and available via `ChecksumString()`, and the downloaded package control hash is computed, but the two values are never compared in `getPackageImpl()`. Mismatched packages are silently accepted. An attacker who can substitute download responses (compromised mirror, HTTP repository, poisoned CDN cache) can install arbitrary packages into built images.\n\n**Fix:** No fix available yet.\n\n**Acknowledgements**\n\napko thanks Oleh Konko from [1seal](https://1seal.org/) for discovering and reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-hcwr-pq9g-rq3m",
"modified": "2026-05-13T13:42:49Z",
"published": "2026-05-04T21:27:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko/security/advisories/GHSA-hcwr-pq9g-rq3m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42575"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko/commit/a118c3d604107532b5525bd4bee2fb369a6228aa"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/chainguard-dev/apko/releases/tag/v1.2.7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "apko doesn\u0027t verify downloaded apk packages against APKINDEX checksum (package substitution possible)"
}
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.