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-X39V-FRQ9-5HH8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-18 06:30 – Updated: 2025-11-04 00:30When the Node.js policy feature checks the integrity of a resource against a trusted manifest, the application can intercept the operation and return a forged checksum to the node's policy implementation, thus effectively disabling the integrity check. Impacts: This vulnerability affects all users using the experimental policy mechanism in all active release lines: 18.x and, 20.x. Please note that at the time this CVE was issued, the policy mechanism is an experimental feature of Node.js.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-38552"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-18T04:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "When the Node.js policy feature checks the integrity of a resource against a trusted manifest, the application can intercept the operation and return a forged checksum to the node\u0027s policy implementation, thus effectively disabling the integrity check.\nImpacts:\nThis vulnerability affects all users using the experimental policy mechanism in all active release lines: 18.x and, 20.x.\nPlease note that at the time this CVE was issued, the policy mechanism is an experimental feature of Node.js.",
"id": "GHSA-x39v-frq9-5hh8",
"modified": "2025-11-04T00:30:40Z",
"published": "2023-10-18T06:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-38552"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/2094235"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3N4NJ7FR4X4FPZUGNTQAPSTVB2HB2Y4A"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E72T67UPDRXHIDLO3OROR25YAMN4GGW5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FNA62Q767CFAFHBCDKYNPBMZWB7TWYVU"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HT7T2R4MQKLIF4ODV4BDLPARWFPCJ5CZ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LKYHSZQFDNR7RSA7LHVLLIAQMVYCUGBG"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/X6QXN4ORIVF6XBW4WWFE7VNPVC74S45Y"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20231116-0013"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20241108-0002"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-X3GG-M9C9-95RP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-31 00:30 – Updated: 2023-02-07 03:30Snap One Wattbox WB-300-IP-3 versions WB10.9a17 and prior use a proprietary local area network (LAN) protocol that does not verify updates to the device. An attacker could upload a malformed update file to the device and execute arbitrary code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-22315"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-30T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Snap One Wattbox WB-300-IP-3 versions WB10.9a17 and prior use a proprietary local area network (LAN) protocol that does not verify updates to the device. An attacker could upload a malformed update file to the device and execute arbitrary code.",
"id": "GHSA-x3gg-m9c9-95rp",
"modified": "2023-02-07T03:30:23Z",
"published": "2023-01-31T00:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22315"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-23-026-03"
}
],
"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-X3M2-F92M-6Q4J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-25 19:00 – Updated: 2022-10-26 12:00A firmware update vulnerability exists in the sysupgrade functionality of Robustel R1510 3.1.16 and 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network packet can lead to arbitrary firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-34845"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-25T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A firmware update vulnerability exists in the sysupgrade functionality of Robustel R1510 3.1.16 and 3.3.0. A specially-crafted network packet can lead to arbitrary firmware update. An attacker can send a sequence of requests to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-x3m2-f92m-6q4j",
"modified": "2022-10-26T12:00:29Z",
"published": "2022-10-25T19:00:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-34845"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2022-1580"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X5C4-2C4M-RFJ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-30 18:30 – Updated: 2025-09-30 18:30Rapid7 AppSpider Pro versions below 7.5.021 suffer from a project name validation vulnerability, whereby an attacker can change the project name directly in the configuration file to a name that already exists. This issue stems from a lack of effective verification of the uniqueness of project names when editing them outside the application in affected versions. This vulnerability was remediated in version 7.5.021 of the product.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-11195"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-30T18:15:49Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Rapid7 AppSpider Pro versions below 7.5.021 suffer from a project name validation vulnerability, whereby an attacker can change the project name directly in the configuration file to a name that already exists. This issue stems from a lack of effective verification of the uniqueness of project names when editing them outside the application in affected versions. This vulnerability was remediated in version 7.5.021 of the product.",
"id": "GHSA-x5c4-2c4m-rfj5",
"modified": "2025-09-30T18:30:25Z",
"published": "2025-09-30T18:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11195"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.rapid7.com/insight/releasenotes-2025sep/#application-security-insightappsec-and-appspider"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X5Q5-6WVF-2FPQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:00 – Updated: 2023-09-26 19:09An insufficient logging and monitoring vulnerability exists in Magento 2.1 prior to 2.1.19, Magento 2.2 prior to 2.2.10, Magento 2.3 prior to 2.3.3. Failure to track admin actions related to design configuration could lead to repudiation attacks.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.1.19"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "magento/community-edition"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.3.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-8124"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-18T17:52:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-11-05T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An insufficient logging and monitoring vulnerability exists in Magento 2.1 prior to 2.1.19, Magento 2.2 prior to 2.2.10, Magento 2.3 prior to 2.3.3. Failure to track admin actions related to design configuration could lead to repudiation attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-x5q5-6wvf-2fpq",
"modified": "2023-09-26T19:09:58Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:00:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-8124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/magento/product-community-edition/CVE-2019-8124.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/magento/magento2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://magento.com/security/patches/magento-2.3.3-and-2.2.10-security-update"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20220121051105/https://magento.com/security/patches/magento-2.3.3-and-2.2.10-security-update"
}
],
"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": "Magento 2 Community Edition Insufficient Logging"
}
GHSA-X889-V4RV-3355
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-08 00:00 – Updated: 2022-03-17 00:03The Custom Content Shortcode WordPress plugin before 4.0.2 does not validate the data passed to its load shortcode, which could allow Contributor+ (v < 4.0.1) or Admin+ (v < 4.0.2) users to display arbitrary files from the filesystem (such as logs, .htaccess etc), as well as perform Local File Inclusion attacks as PHP files will be executed. Please note that such attack is still possible by admin+ in single site blogs by default (but won't be when either the unfiltered_html or file_edit is disallowed)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24825"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-284",
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-07T09:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Custom Content Shortcode WordPress plugin before 4.0.2 does not validate the data passed to its load shortcode, which could allow Contributor+ (v \u003c 4.0.1) or Admin+ (v \u003c 4.0.2) users to display arbitrary files from the filesystem (such as logs, .htaccess etc), as well as perform Local File Inclusion attacks as PHP files will be executed. Please note that such attack is still possible by admin+ in single site blogs by default (but won\u0027t be when either the unfiltered_html or file_edit is disallowed)",
"id": "GHSA-x889-v4rv-3355",
"modified": "2022-03-17T00:03:06Z",
"published": "2022-03-08T00:00:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24825"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/be9d6f82-c972-459a-bacf-65b3dfb11a09"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X8V9-642F-J4VC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-02 18:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:29An insufficient verification of data vulnerability exists in BIG-IP Edge Client for Windows and macOS that may allow an attacker to modify its configured server list. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36858"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-02T16:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "\nAn insufficient verification of data vulnerability exists in BIG-IP Edge Client for Windows and macOS that may allow an attacker to modify its configured server list.\u00a0\u00a0Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.",
"id": "GHSA-x8v9-642f-j4vc",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:29:51Z",
"published": "2023-08-02T18:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36858"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000132563"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-X8XR-RM9R-7MVF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:58 – Updated: 2023-02-08 18:13OpenStack Compute (Nova) before 2014.1.4, 2014.2.x before 2014.2.3, and kilo before kilo-3 does not validate the origin of websocket requests, which allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for access to consoles via a crafted webpage.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "nova"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2014.1.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "nova"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2014.2.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2014.2.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-0259"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-02-08T18:13:27Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2015-04-01T14:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "OpenStack Compute (Nova) before 2014.1.4, 2014.2.x before 2014.2.3, and kilo before kilo-3 does not validate the origin of websocket requests, which allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for access to consoles via a crafted webpage.",
"id": "GHSA-x8xr-rm9r-7mvf",
"modified": "2023-02-08T18:13:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:58:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-0259"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015:0790"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015:0843"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015:0844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-0259"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1409142"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190112"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://opendev.org/openstack/nova"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-announce/2015-March/000341.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0790.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0843.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0844.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "OpenStack Compute (Nova) has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity"
}
GHSA-X92V-RPX6-P6CW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 13:58 – Updated: 2026-06-18 13:58The WhatsApp and Linear bot adapters verify the inbound webhook HMAC signature only when a secret is configured. When the secret environment variable is unset — the default on a fresh install and common in development — verification is skipped entirely and the webhook body is parsed and dispatched as a genuine, trusted event. A remote, unauthenticated attacker who can reach the bot's webhook endpoint can inject arbitrary platform events.
Affected code:
WhatsApp - src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/whatsapp.py
- init (line 108): self._app_secret = app_secret or os.environ.get("WHATSAPP_APP_SECRET", "") -> defaults to ""
- route (line 246): app.router.add_post(self._webhook_path, self._handle_webhook) -> default path "/webhook"
- _handle_webhook (lines 585-595): if self._app_secret: gates the ENTIRE check; when falsy the body is
json.loads()'d and dispatched to _process_webhook_data() with no verification.
Linear - src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/linear.py
- init (line 86): self._signing_secret = signing_secret or os.environ.get("LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET", "") -> ""
- _handle_webhook (lines 244-248): same if self._signing_secret: fail-open guard.
- start() (lines 169-170): only logs a warning; does not fail closed.
The _verify_signature implementations themselves are correct (constant-time HMAC-SHA256); the defect is that verification is bypassed when the secret is absent.
Impact: - WhatsApp: attacker POSTs a crafted Meta Cloud API payload spoofing any sender and message text; injected into agent sessions and processed as a real user message (prompt injection, unauthorized agent/command invocation, contact impersonation). - Linear: attacker POSTs forged AgentSession / Comment events, causing the agent to act on and comment on issues no legitimate event referenced. The webhook routes require no other authentication, so exploitation needs only network reachability.
Proof of concept (bot started without the secret - the default):
curl -X POST http://VICTIM:PORT/webhook \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ -d '{"object":"whatsapp_business_account","entry":[{"changes":[{"value": {"messages":[{"from":"15551234567","id":"wamid.x","type":"text", "text":{"body":"attacker-injected message"}}]}}]}]}' # No X-Hub-Signature-256 header; bot returns 200 and processes the message. # Linear: omit LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET and POST without a Linear-Signature header.
A self-contained PoC that executes the real _handle_webhook / _verify_signature source extracted from the repo confirms: secret unset -> status 200, payload dispatched (VULNERABLE); secret set + no signature -> status 403, nothing dispatched (control).
Remediation: Fail closed. When no secret is configured, reject all webhooks (HTTP 403) and refuse to start the adapter unless a secret is set (or an explicit, clearly-named insecure-dev override is given):
if not self._app_secret: return web.Response(status=403, text="Webhook secret not configured") signature = request.headers.get("X-Hub-Signature-256", "") if not self._verify_signature(body, signature): return web.Response(status=403, text="Invalid signature")
Distinct from prior advisories: The accepted default-insecure advisories cover a different surface/mechanism — CALL_SERVER_TOKEN unset (GHSA-86qc-r5v2-v6x6) and the JWT key default "dev-secret-change-me" (GHSA-3qg8-5g3r-79v5). This is in the bot webhook adapters and the mechanism is skipping signature verification entirely when the secret is absent, not a weak default key.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.6.52"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "praisonai"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.6.59"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-347"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T13:58:08Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The WhatsApp and Linear bot adapters verify the inbound webhook HMAC signature only\nwhen a secret is configured. When the secret environment variable is unset \u2014 the\ndefault on a fresh install and common in development \u2014 verification is skipped entirely\nand the webhook body is parsed and dispatched as a genuine, trusted event. A remote,\nunauthenticated attacker who can reach the bot\u0027s webhook endpoint can inject arbitrary\nplatform events.\n\nAffected code:\n\nWhatsApp - src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/whatsapp.py\n- __init__ (line 108): self._app_secret = app_secret or os.environ.get(\"WHATSAPP_APP_SECRET\", \"\") -\u003e defaults to \"\"\n- route (line 246): app.router.add_post(self._webhook_path, self._handle_webhook) -\u003e default path \"/webhook\"\n- _handle_webhook (lines 585-595): `if self._app_secret:` gates the ENTIRE check; when falsy the body is\n json.loads()\u0027d and dispatched to _process_webhook_data() with no verification.\n\nLinear - src/praisonai/praisonai/bots/linear.py\n- __init__ (line 86): self._signing_secret = signing_secret or os.environ.get(\"LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET\", \"\") -\u003e \"\"\n- _handle_webhook (lines 244-248): same `if self._signing_secret:` fail-open guard.\n- start() (lines 169-170): only logs a warning; does not fail closed.\n\nThe _verify_signature implementations themselves are correct (constant-time HMAC-SHA256);\nthe defect is that verification is bypassed when the secret is absent.\n\nImpact:\n- WhatsApp: attacker POSTs a crafted Meta Cloud API payload spoofing any sender and message\n text; injected into agent sessions and processed as a real user message (prompt injection,\n unauthorized agent/command invocation, contact impersonation).\n- Linear: attacker POSTs forged AgentSession / Comment events, causing the agent to act on and\n comment on issues no legitimate event referenced.\nThe webhook routes require no other authentication, so exploitation needs only network\nreachability.\n\nProof of concept (bot started without the secret - the default):\n\n curl -X POST http://VICTIM:PORT/webhook \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"object\":\"whatsapp_business_account\",\"entry\":[{\"changes\":[{\"value\":\n {\"messages\":[{\"from\":\"15551234567\",\"id\":\"wamid.x\",\"type\":\"text\",\n \"text\":{\"body\":\"attacker-injected message\"}}]}}]}]}\u0027\n # No X-Hub-Signature-256 header; bot returns 200 and processes the message.\n # Linear: omit LINEAR_WEBHOOK_SECRET and POST without a Linear-Signature header.\n\nA self-contained PoC that executes the real _handle_webhook / _verify_signature source\nextracted from the repo confirms: secret unset -\u003e status 200, payload dispatched (VULNERABLE);\nsecret set + no signature -\u003e status 403, nothing dispatched (control).\n\nRemediation:\nFail closed. When no secret is configured, reject all webhooks (HTTP 403) and refuse to start\nthe adapter unless a secret is set (or an explicit, clearly-named insecure-dev override is given):\n\n if not self._app_secret:\n return web.Response(status=403, text=\"Webhook secret not configured\")\n signature = request.headers.get(\"X-Hub-Signature-256\", \"\")\n if not self._verify_signature(body, signature):\n return web.Response(status=403, text=\"Invalid signature\")\n\nDistinct from prior advisories:\nThe accepted default-insecure advisories cover a different surface/mechanism \u2014 CALL_SERVER_TOKEN\nunset (GHSA-86qc-r5v2-v6x6) and the JWT key default \"dev-secret-change-me\" (GHSA-3qg8-5g3r-79v5).\nThis is in the bot webhook adapters and the mechanism is skipping signature verification entirely\nwhen the secret is absent, not a weak default key.",
"id": "GHSA-x92v-rpx6-p6cw",
"modified": "2026-06-18T13:58:08Z",
"published": "2026-06-18T13:58:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI/security/advisories/GHSA-x92v-rpx6-p6cw"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/MervinPraison/PraisonAI"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "PraisonAI: Webhook signature verification skipped (fail-open) when secret unset, allowing forged inbound webhooks (WhatsApp \u0026 Linear bots)"
}
GHSA-X9HG-5Q6G-Q3JR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-22 21:31 – Updated: 2026-06-06 01:02Cross-Domain Token Exposure in server.auth.getAuthorizationToken in Ollama 0.6.7 allows remote attackers to steal authentication tokens and bypass access controls via a malicious realm value in a WWW-Authenticate header returned by the /api/pull endpoint.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ollama/ollama"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.9.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-51471"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-07-22T21:56:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-22T19:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Domain Token Exposure in server.auth.getAuthorizationToken in Ollama 0.6.7 allows remote attackers to steal authentication tokens and bypass access controls via a malicious realm value in a WWW-Authenticate header returned by the /api/pull endpoint.",
"id": "GHSA-x9hg-5q6g-q3jr",
"modified": "2026-06-06T01:02:40Z",
"published": "2025-07-22T21:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-51471"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ollama/ollama/pull/10750"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ollama/ollama"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/ollama/PYSEC-2025-147.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/94eea285-fd65-4e01-a035-f533575ebdc2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.gecko.security/blog/cve-2025-51471"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Ollama vulnerable to Cross-Domain Token Exposure"
}
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.