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-RPJ7-HR7H-W6P9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-19 20:46 – Updated: 2026-06-19 20:46Impact
When a service is configured to validate SAML tokens using a method other than X.509 certificate signing, the final signature verification is skipped.
Preconditions
The service is configured to authenticate using SAML tokens and an out of band token resolver (commonly the IssuerTokenResolver of IssuedTokenServiceCredential) holds a non-X.509 SecurityToken whose key identifier the attacker can reference in the assertion’s <KeyInfo> - for example a BinarySecretSecurityToken representing the symmetric proof key issued by a WS-Trust symmetric-key holder-of-key STS.
Patches
Fixed in CoreWCF v1.8.1 and v1.9.1
Workarounds
None
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "CoreWCF.Primitives"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.8.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "NuGet",
"name": "CoreWCF.Primitives"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.9.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54774"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-347"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-19T20:46:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\nWhen a service is configured to validate SAML tokens using a method other than X.509 certificate signing, the final signature verification is skipped.\n\n#### Preconditions\nThe service is configured to authenticate using SAML tokens and an out of band token resolver (commonly the IssuerTokenResolver of IssuedTokenServiceCredential) holds a non-X.509 SecurityToken whose key identifier the attacker can reference in the assertion\u2019s `\u003cKeyInfo\u003e` - for example a `BinarySecretSecurityToken` representing the symmetric proof key issued by a WS-Trust symmetric-key holder-of-key STS.\n\n### Patches\nFixed in CoreWCF v1.8.1 and v1.9.1\n\n### Workarounds\nNone",
"id": "GHSA-rpj7-hr7h-w6p9",
"modified": "2026-06-19T20:46:46Z",
"published": "2026-06-19T20:46:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/security/advisories/GHSA-rpj7-hr7h-w6p9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CoreWCF: SamlSerializer skips SignatureValue verification when SAML signing token is not an X.509 certificate"
}
GHSA-RRXX-CC32-QFVP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:44 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:44IBM DataPower Gateways 7.1, 7,2, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an attacker using man-in-the-middle techniques to spoof DNS responses to perform DNS cache poisoning and redirect Internet traffic. IBM X-Force ID: 136817.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1773"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-31T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM DataPower Gateways 7.1, 7,2, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an attacker using man-in-the-middle techniques to spoof DNS responses to perform DNS cache poisoning and redirect Internet traffic. IBM X-Force ID: 136817.",
"id": "GHSA-rrxx-cc32-qfvp",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:44:32Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:44:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1773"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/136817"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg22012758"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RV63-4MWF-QQC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-16 14:32 – Updated: 2026-06-16 14:32Summary
The Body Limit Middleware trusts the request's Content-Length header to decide whether a body is within the limit. On AWS Lambda (API Gateway v1/v2, ALB, VPC Lattice, and Lambda@Edge) the body is delivered fully buffered and the adapter builds the request with the client-declared Content-Length, which need not match the actual payload. A client can declare a tiny Content-Length while sending a much larger body, slipping past the limit.
Details
When Content-Length is present and Transfer-Encoding is absent, the middleware compares the declared value against the limit and passes the request through if it is small enough. On standards-based runtimes the transport enforces that Content-Length matches the body, so this is safe. The Lambda adapters instead reconstruct the request from a buffered payload and copy the client's Content-Length verbatim, so the declared length and the real body size are decoupled.
This issue affects applications deployed on AWS Lambda that rely on the Body Limit Middleware to cap request body size.
Impact
The declared body-size limit can be bypassed: a handler reads a payload larger than the configured maximum. Processing the oversized payload (large JSON, multipart, etc.) consumes additional CPU and memory per request. The payload remains bounded by the platform's request size limits, and Lambda isolates invocations, so the impact is increased per-request resource usage rather than full denial of service. This affects applications deployed on AWS Lambda that use the Body Limit Middleware.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "hono"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.12.25"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54288"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-16T14:32:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe Body Limit Middleware trusts the request\u0027s `Content-Length` header to decide whether a body is within the limit. On AWS Lambda (API Gateway v1/v2, ALB, VPC Lattice, and Lambda@Edge) the body is delivered fully buffered and the adapter builds the request with the client-declared `Content-Length`, which need not match the actual payload. A client can declare a tiny `Content-Length` while sending a much larger body, slipping past the limit.\n\n### Details\n\nWhen `Content-Length` is present and `Transfer-Encoding` is absent, the middleware compares the declared value against the limit and passes the request through if it is small enough. On standards-based runtimes the transport enforces that `Content-Length` matches the body, so this is safe. The Lambda adapters instead reconstruct the request from a buffered payload and copy the client\u0027s `Content-Length` verbatim, so the declared length and the real body size are decoupled.\n\nThis issue affects applications deployed on AWS Lambda that rely on the Body Limit Middleware to cap request body size.\n\n### Impact\n\nThe declared body-size limit can be bypassed: a handler reads a payload larger than the configured maximum. Processing the oversized payload (large JSON, multipart, etc.) consumes additional CPU and memory per request. The payload remains bounded by the platform\u0027s request size limits, and Lambda isolates invocations, so the impact is increased per-request resource usage rather than full denial of service. This affects applications deployed on AWS Lambda that use the Body Limit Middleware.",
"id": "GHSA-rv63-4mwf-qqc2",
"modified": "2026-06-16T14:32:49Z",
"published": "2026-06-16T14:32:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono/security/advisories/GHSA-rv63-4mwf-qqc2"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/honojs/hono"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "hono: Body Limit Middleware can be bypassed on AWS Lambda by understating `Content-Length`"
}
GHSA-RVJ2-JR49-7HC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:47 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:47Intel Driver Update Utility before 2.4 retrieves driver updates in cleartext, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted file.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-1493"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-01-29T20:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Intel Driver Update Utility before 2.4 retrieves driver updates in cleartext, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted file.",
"id": "GHSA-rvj2-jr49-7hc2",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:47:00Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:47:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-1493"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00048\u0026languageid=en-fr"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/135314/Intel-Driver-Update-Utility-2.2.0.5-Man-In-The-Middle.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Jan/56"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.coresecurity.com/advisories/intel-driver-update-utility-mitm"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/537327/100/0/threaded"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RVQR-HRCC-J9VV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-26 19:50 – Updated: 2026-04-10 19:38Summary
Bonjour and DNS-SD TXT metadata could still steer CLI routing even when actual service resolution failed, allowing unresolved hints to influence the chosen target.
Affected Packages / Versions
- Package:
openclaw(npm) - Affected: < 2026.3.22
- Fixed: >= 2026.3.22
- Latest released tag checked:
v2026.3.23-2(630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87) - Latest published npm version checked:
2026.3.23-2
Fix Commit(s)
deecf68b59a9b7eea978e40fd3c2fe543087b569
Release Status
The fix shipped in v2026.3.22 and remains present in v2026.3.23 and v2026.3.23-2.
Code-Level Confirmation
- src/infra/bonjour-discovery.ts now resolves and returns only concrete endpoints instead of falling back to unresolved TXT host and port hints.
- src/cli/gateway-cli/discover.ts consumes only the fail-closed resolved endpoint path.
OpenClaw thanks @nexrin for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.3.22"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-35659"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-642"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-26T19:50:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-10T17:17:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\nBonjour and DNS-SD TXT metadata could still steer CLI routing even when actual service resolution failed, allowing unresolved hints to influence the chosen target.\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n- Package: `openclaw` (npm)\n- Affected: \u003c 2026.3.22\n- Fixed: \u003e= 2026.3.22\n- Latest released tag checked: `v2026.3.23-2` (`630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87`)\n- Latest published npm version checked: `2026.3.23-2`\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n- `deecf68b59a9b7eea978e40fd3c2fe543087b569`\n\n## Release Status\nThe fix shipped in `v2026.3.22` and remains present in `v2026.3.23` and `v2026.3.23-2`.\n\n## Code-Level Confirmation\n- src/infra/bonjour-discovery.ts now resolves and returns only concrete endpoints instead of falling back to unresolved TXT host and port hints.\n- src/cli/gateway-cli/discover.ts consumes only the fail-closed resolved endpoint path.\n\nOpenClaw thanks @nexrin for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-rvqr-hrcc-j9vv",
"modified": "2026-04-10T19:38:24Z",
"published": "2026-03-26T19:50:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-rvqr-hrcc-j9vv"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/630f1479c44f78484dfa21bb407cbe6f171dac87"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/deecf68b59a9b7eea978e40fd3c2fe543087b569"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-unresolved-service-metadata-routing-via-bonjour-and-dns-sd-discovery"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw: Bonjour/DNS-SD TXT metadata steers CLI routing after failed service resolution"
}
GHSA-RW32-GHJC-99G6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-21 09:30 – Updated: 2023-03-24 18:30A CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability exists in the Data Server that could cause manipulation of dashboard files in the IGSS project report directory, when an attacker sends specific crafted messages to the Data Server TCP port, this could lead to remote code execution when a victim eventually opens a malicious dashboard file. Affected Products: IGSS Data Server(IGSSdataServer.exe)(V16.0.0.23040 and prior), IGSS Dashboard(DashBoard.exe)(V16.0.0.23040 and prior), Custom Reports(RMS16.dll)(V16.0.0.23040 and prior).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-27982"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-21T07:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A CWE-345: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability exists in the Data Server that could cause manipulation of dashboard files in the IGSS project report directory, when an attacker sends specific crafted messages to the Data Server TCP port, this could lead to remote code execution when a victim eventually opens a malicious dashboard file. Affected Products: IGSS Data Server(IGSSdataServer.exe)(V16.0.0.23040 and prior), IGSS Dashboard(DashBoard.exe)(V16.0.0.23040 and prior), Custom Reports(RMS16.dll)(V16.0.0.23040 and prior).",
"id": "GHSA-rw32-ghjc-99g6",
"modified": "2023-03-24T18:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-03-21T09:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27982"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://download.schneider-electric.com/files?p_Doc_Ref=SEVD-2023-073-04\u0026p_enDocType=Security+and+Safety+Notice\u0026p_File_Name=SEVD-2023-073-04.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RWQ8-GXHP-FVVR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:05 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:05iRZ RUH2 before 2b does not validate firmware patches, which allows remote authenticated users to modify data or cause a denial of service via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-2309"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-05-30T01:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "iRZ RUH2 before 2b does not validate firmware patches, which allows remote authenticated users to modify data or cause a denial of service via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-rwq8-gxhp-fvvr",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:05:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:05:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-2309"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-16-138-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RXQH-7QX7-59M3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-05 12:31 – Updated: 2024-11-07 12:30In 2N Access Commander versions 3.1.1.2 and prior, an Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability could allow an attacker to escalate their privileges and gain root access to the system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-47254"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-807"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-05T10:20:04Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In 2N Access Commander versions 3.1.1.2 and prior, an Insufficient \nVerification of Data Authenticity vulnerability could allow an attacker \nto escalate their privileges and gain root access to the system.",
"id": "GHSA-rxqh-7qx7-59m3",
"modified": "2024-11-07T12:30:34Z",
"published": "2024-11-05T12:31:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47254"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.2n.com/en-GB/about-2n/cybersecurity"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.2n.com/en-GB/download/Access-Commander-Security-Advisory-2024-11"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-V3Q9-2P3M-7G43
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-05-24 16:57 – Updated: 2023-08-29 23:07Impact
When using client authentication method "private_key_jwt" [1], OpenId specification says the following about assertion jti:
A unique identifier for the token, which can be used to prevent reuse of the token. These tokens MUST only be used once, unless conditions for reuse were negotiated between the parties
Hydra does not seem to check the uniqueness of this jti value. Here is me sending the same token request twice, hence with the same jti assertion, and getting two access tokens:
$ curl --insecure --location --request POST 'https://localhost/_/oauth2/token' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \
--data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' \
--data-urlencode 'client_id=c001d00d-5ecc-beef-ca4e-b00b1e54a111' \
--data-urlencode 'scope=application openid' \
--data-urlencode 'client_assertion_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer' \
--data-urlencode 'client_assertion=eyJhb [...] jTw'
{"access_token":"zeG0NoqOtlACl8q5J6A-TIsNegQRRUzqLZaYrQtoBZQ.VR6iUcJQYp3u_j7pwvL7YtPqGhtyQe5OhnBE2KCp5pM","expires_in":3599,"scope":"application openid","token_type":"bearer"}⏎
$ curl --insecure --location --request POST 'https://localhost/_/oauth2/token' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \
--data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' \
--data-urlencode 'client_id=c001d00d-5ecc-beef-ca4e-b00b1e54a111' \
--data-urlencode 'scope=application openid' \
--data-urlencode 'client_assertion_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer' \
--data-urlencode 'client_assertion=eyJhb [...] jTw'
{"access_token":"wOYtgCLxLXlELORrwZlmeiqqMQ4kRzV-STU2_Sollas.mwlQGCZWXN7G2IoegUe1P0Vw5iGoKrkOzOaplhMSjm4","expires_in":3599,"scope":"application openid","token_type":"bearer"}
Patches
This issue is patched in 0.31.0.
Workarounds
Do not allow clients to use private_key_jwt.
References
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClientAuthentication
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ory/fosite"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.31.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-15222"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-287",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-24T12:52:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-09-24T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nWhen using client authentication method \"private_key_jwt\" [[1]](https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClientAuthentication), OpenId specification says the following about assertion `jti`:\n\n\u003e A unique identifier for the token, which can be used to prevent reuse of the token. These tokens MUST only be used once, unless conditions for reuse were negotiated between the parties\n\nHydra does not seem to check the uniqueness of this `jti` value. Here is me sending the same token request twice, hence with the same `jti` assertion, and getting two access tokens:\n\n```\n$ curl --insecure --location --request POST \u0027https://localhost/_/oauth2/token\u0027 \\\n --header \u0027Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027grant_type=client_credentials\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027client_id=c001d00d-5ecc-beef-ca4e-b00b1e54a111\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027scope=application openid\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027client_assertion_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027client_assertion=eyJhb [...] jTw\u0027\n{\"access_token\":\"zeG0NoqOtlACl8q5J6A-TIsNegQRRUzqLZaYrQtoBZQ.VR6iUcJQYp3u_j7pwvL7YtPqGhtyQe5OhnBE2KCp5pM\",\"expires_in\":3599,\"scope\":\"application openid\",\"token_type\":\"bearer\"}\u23ce\n$ curl --insecure --location --request POST \u0027https://localhost/_/oauth2/token\u0027 \\\n --header \u0027Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027grant_type=client_credentials\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027client_id=c001d00d-5ecc-beef-ca4e-b00b1e54a111\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027scope=application openid\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027client_assertion_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer\u0027 \\\n --data-urlencode \u0027client_assertion=eyJhb [...] jTw\u0027\n{\"access_token\":\"wOYtgCLxLXlELORrwZlmeiqqMQ4kRzV-STU2_Sollas.mwlQGCZWXN7G2IoegUe1P0Vw5iGoKrkOzOaplhMSjm4\",\"expires_in\":3599,\"scope\":\"application openid\",\"token_type\":\"bearer\"}\n```\n\n### Patches\n\nThis issue is patched in 0.31.0.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nDo not allow clients to use `private_key_jwt`.\n\n### References\n\nhttps://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClientAuthentication",
"id": "GHSA-v3q9-2p3m-7g43",
"modified": "2023-08-29T23:07:22Z",
"published": "2021-05-24T16:57:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ory/fosite/security/advisories/GHSA-v3q9-2p3m-7g43"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-15222"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ory/fosite/commit/0c9e0f6d654913ad57c507dd9a36631e1858a3e9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ory/fosite"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ory/fosite/releases/tag/v0.31.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClientAuthentication"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2021-0110"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Token reuse in Ory fosite"
}
GHSA-V3VJ-5868-2CH2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-26 13:02 – Updated: 2025-10-23 20:29Impact
A vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager whereby the SAML authentication from the Rancher CLI tool is vulnerable to phishing attacks. The custom authentication protocol for SAML-based providers can be abused to steal Rancher’s authentication tokens.
Rancher Manager deployments without SAML authentication enabled are not affected by this vulnerability.
An attacker can generate a phishing SAML login URL which contains a publicKey and requestId controlled by the attacker. The attacker can then give the link to another user (eg: admin) and if the victim goes to the link unsuspectingly, they might not notice the bad parameters in the URL. The user will be prompted to login and might believe that its session has ended so they need to re-login. By clicking on the link, they will be logged in and an encrypted token will be created with the attacker's public key. The attacker can then decrypt the victim’s Rancher token, enabling the attack
Please consult the associated MITRE ATTACK Techniques - Privilege Escalation for further information about this category of attack.
Patches
This vulnerability is addressed by changes in both Rancher Manager and the CLI. The fixed versions:
- The Rancher CLI now reports the
requestIdthat is relevant to the authentication session in process as a separate message to the terminal, making it easier for the user to identify and compare. - The Rancher login page for SAML authentication will display a suitable warning to ensure that the user seeing the login page is aware of the login process with the related
requestId, enabling users to verify whether the request was intended or not.
Patched versions of Rancher include releases v2.12.2, v2.11.6, v2.10.10, and v2.9.12.
Workarounds
If you cannot update to one of the fixed versions, make sure to check the URL printed by the Rancher CLI when performing a SAML authentication flow, especially the requestId parameter. The URL and the requestId printed by the CLI must be the same URL that you access and see when finalizing the SAML authentication flow in your browser for the Rancher UI. The URL has the format:
<rancher_ui_address>/dashboard/auth/login?requestId=<requestid>&publicKey=<pubkey>&responseType=<responsetype>
If the URL presented in the browser is different from the one logged by the CLI, the user must not proceed with the login, as they might be under a phishing attack.
References
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Reach out to the SUSE Rancher Security team for security related inquiries.
- Open an issue in the Rancher repository.
- Verify with our support matrix and product support lifecycle.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.12.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.12.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.11.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.10.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.9.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.9.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-58267"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-09-26T13:02:44Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-02T12:15:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nA vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager whereby the SAML authentication from the Rancher CLI tool is vulnerable to phishing attacks. The custom authentication protocol for SAML-based providers can be abused to steal Rancher\u2019s authentication tokens.\n\nRancher Manager deployments without SAML authentication enabled are not affected by this vulnerability.\n\nAn attacker can generate a phishing SAML login URL which contains a `publicKey` and `requestId` controlled by the attacker. The attacker can then give the link to another user (eg: admin) and if the victim goes to the link unsuspectingly, they might not notice the bad parameters in the URL. The user will be prompted to login and might believe that its session has ended so they need to re-login. By clicking on the link, they will be logged in and an encrypted token will be created with the attacker\u0027s public key. The attacker can then decrypt the victim\u2019s Rancher token, enabling the attack\n\nPlease consult the associated [MITRE ATTACK Techniques - Privilege Escalation](https://attack.mitre.org/tactics/TA0004/) for further information about this category of attack.\n\n### Patches\n\nThis vulnerability is addressed by changes in both Rancher Manager and the CLI. The fixed versions:\n\n1. The Rancher CLI now reports the `requestId` that is relevant to the authentication session in process as a separate message to the terminal, making it easier for the user to identify and compare.\n2. The Rancher login page for SAML authentication will display a suitable warning to ensure that the user seeing the login page is aware of the login process with the related `requestId`, enabling users to verify whether the request was intended or not.\n\nPatched versions of Rancher include releases v2.12.2, v2.11.6, v2.10.10, and v2.9.12.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nIf you cannot update to one of the fixed versions, make sure to check the URL printed by the Rancher CLI when performing a SAML authentication flow, especially the `requestId` parameter. The URL and the `requestId` printed by the CLI must be the same URL that you access and see when finalizing the SAML authentication flow in your browser for the Rancher UI. The URL has the format:\n\n- `\u003crancher_ui_address\u003e/dashboard/auth/login?requestId=\u003crequestid\u003e\u0026publicKey=\u003cpubkey\u003e\u0026responseType=\u003cresponsetype\u003e` \n\nIf the URL presented in the browser is different from the one logged by the CLI, the user must not proceed with the login, as they might be under a phishing attack.\n\n### References\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n\n- Reach out to the [SUSE Rancher Security team](https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/policy) for security related inquiries.\n- Open an issue in the [Rancher](https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/new/choose) repository.\n- Verify with our [support matrix](https://www.suse.com/suse-rancher/support-matrix/all-supported-versions/) and [product support lifecycle](https://www.suse.com/lifecycle/).",
"id": "GHSA-v3vj-5868-2ch2",
"modified": "2025-10-23T20:29:33Z",
"published": "2025-09-26T13:02:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/advisories/GHSA-v3vj-5868-2ch2"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-58267"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2024-58267"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/rancher/rancher"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2025-3984"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Rancher CLI SAML authentication is vulnerable to phishing attacks"
}
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.