CWE-354
AllowedImproper Validation of Integrity Check Value
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
231 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-PMFR-63C2-JR5C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-20 18:24 – Updated: 2023-01-20 22:02Impact
The Singularity Execution Control List (ECL) allows system administrators to set up a policy that defines rules about what signature(s) must be (or must not be) present on a SIF container image for it to be permitted to run.
In Singularity 3.x versions below 3.6.0, the following issues allow the ECL to be bypassed by a malicious user:
- Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced.
- The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature. Thus, it is trivial to craft an arbitrary payload which will be permitted to run, even if the attacker does not have access to the private key associated with the fingerprint(s) configured in the ECL.
Patches
These issues are addressed in Singularity 3.6.0.
All users are advised to upgrade to 3.6.0. Note that Singularity 3.6.0 uses a new signature format that is necessarily incompatible with Singularity < 3.6.0 - e.g. Singularity 3.5.3 cannot verify containers signed by 3.6.0.
Version 3.6.0 includes a legacyinsecure option that can be set to legacyinsecure = true in ecl.toml to allow the ECL to perform verification of the older, and insecure, legacy signatures for compatibility with existing containers. This does not guarantee that containers have not been modified since signing, due to other issues in the legacy signature format. The option should be used only to temporarily ease the transition to containers signed with the new 3.6.0 signature format.
Workarounds
This issue affects any installation of Singularity configured to use the Execution Control List (ECL) functionality. There is no workaround if ECL is required.
For more information
General questions about the impact of the advisory / changes made in the 3.6.0 release can be asked in the:
Any sensitive security concerns should be directed to: security@sylabs.io
See our Security Policy here: https://sylabs.io/security-policy
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/sylabs/singularity"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-13845"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-347",
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-24T19:13:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-07-14T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nThe Singularity Execution Control List (ECL) allows system administrators to set up a policy that defines rules about what signature(s) must be (or must not be) present on a SIF container image for it to be permitted to run.\n\nIn Singularity 3.x versions below 3.6.0, the following issues allow the ECL to be bypassed by a malicious user:\n\n * Image integrity is not validated when an ECL policy is enforced.\n * The fingerprint required by the ECL is compared against the signature object descriptor(s) in the SIF file, rather than to a cryptographically validated signature. Thus, it is trivial to craft an arbitrary payload which will be permitted to run, even if the attacker does not have access to the private key associated with the fingerprint(s) configured in the ECL.\n\n### Patches\n\nThese issues are addressed in Singularity 3.6.0.\n\nAll users are advised to upgrade to 3.6.0. Note that Singularity 3.6.0 uses a new signature format that is necessarily incompatible with Singularity \u003c 3.6.0 - e.g. Singularity 3.5.3 cannot verify containers signed by 3.6.0.\n\nVersion 3.6.0 includes a `legacyinsecure` option that can be set to `legacyinsecure = true` in `ecl.toml` to allow the ECL to perform verification of the older, and insecure, legacy signatures for compatibility with existing containers. This does not guarantee that containers have not been modified since signing, due to other issues in the legacy signature format. The option should be used only to temporarily ease the transition to containers signed with the new 3.6.0 signature format.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThis issue affects any installation of Singularity configured to use the Execution Control List (ECL) functionality. There is no workaround if ECL is required.\n\n### For more information\n\nGeneral questions about the impact of the advisory / changes made in the 3.6.0 release can be asked in the:\n\n* [Singularity Slack Channel](https://bit.ly/2m0g3lX)\n* [Singularity Mailing List](https://groups.google.com/a/lbl.gov/forum/??sdf%7Csort:date#!forum/singularity)\n\nAny sensitive security concerns should be directed to: security@sylabs.io\n\nSee our Security Policy here: https://sylabs.io/security-policy",
"id": "GHSA-pmfr-63c2-jr5c",
"modified": "2023-01-20T22:02:58Z",
"published": "2021-12-20T18:24:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hpcng/singularity/security/advisories/GHSA-pmfr-63c2-jr5c"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-13845"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/sylabs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-07/msg00046.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-07/msg00059.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2020-09/msg00053.html"
}
],
"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": "Execution Control List (ECL) Is Insecure in Singularity"
}
GHSA-PVCJ-XVM2-WGMW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-22 21:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:16Snap One OvrC Pro devices versions 7.2 and prior do not validate firmware updates correctly. The device only calculates the MD5 hash of the firmware and does not check using a private-public key mechanism. The lack of complete PKI system firmware signature could allow attackers to upload arbitrary firmware updates, resulting in code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-28386"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-22T20:15:10Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSnap One OvrC Pro devices versions 7.2 and prior do not validate firmware updates correctly. The device only calculates the MD5 hash of the firmware and does not check using a private-public key mechanism. The lack of complete PKI system firmware signature could allow attackers to upload arbitrary firmware updates, resulting in code execution.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-pvcj-xvm2-wgmw",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:16:37Z",
"published": "2023-05-22T21:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-28386"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-23-136-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.control4.com/docs/product/ovrc-software/release-notes/english/latest/ovrc-software-release-notes-rev-p.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PVMV-CWG8-V6C8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 18:27 – Updated: 2026-05-08 18:27Consensus Divergence in V5 Transparent SIGHASH_SINGLE With No Corresponding Output
Summary
Zebra failed to enforce a ZIP-244 consensus rule for V5 transparent transactions: when an input is signed with SIGHASH_SINGLE and there is no transparent output at the same index as that input, validation must fail. Zebra instead asked the underlying sighash library to compute a digest, and that library produced a digest over an empty output set rather than failing. An attacker could craft a V5 transaction with more transparent inputs than outputs that Zebra accepts but zcashd rejects, creating a consensus split between Zebra and zcashd nodes.
A previous fix (GHSA-cwfq-rfcr-8hmp) addressed a closely related case in the same area of the code, but did not cover this specific one.
Severity
Critical - This is a Consensus Vulnerability that could allow a malicious party to induce network partitioning, service disruption, and potential double-spend attacks against affected nodes.
Note that the impact is currently alleviated by the fact that currently most miners run zcashd.
Affected Versions
Zebra 4.4.0.
Description
Verification of transparent transactions inherits the Bitcoin Script verification code in C++. Since it is consensus-critical, this code is called from Zebra through a foreign function interface (FFI), with a Rust callback that computes the sighash for each input being verified.
ZIP-244 §S.2a marks two situations as consensus failure for V5 transparent signatures:
- The signed hash type is not one of the six canonical values; and
- The hash type is
SIGHASH_SINGLE(alone or combined withANYONECANPAY) and the input has no transparent output at the same index.
zcashd enforces both rules: its SignatureHash raises an exception, and CheckSig catches it and fails the script. A previous fix (GHSA-cwfq-rfcr-8hmp) added the first rule to Zebra's V5 sighash callback. The second rule, however, was not added — Zebra's callback forwarded the request to librustzcash's ZIP-244 implementation, which handles an out-of-range SIGHASH_SINGLE output index by hashing an empty output set rather than refusing to produce a digest. As a result, Zebra would compute a well-defined sighash for the missing-output case and accept any signature that verified against it.
An attacker could exploit this by:
- Constructing a V5 transaction with two or more transparent inputs and fewer transparent outputs;
- Signing an input whose index has no matching
voutentry withSIGHASH_SINGLE(0x03) orSIGHASH_SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY(0x83), using the digest Zebra computes; - Broadcasting the transaction, or a block containing it, to the network.
Zebra would verify the transaction's transparent script and accept the transaction (and any block containing it), while zcashd would reject both, splitting Zebra nodes from the rest of the network.
Impact
Consensus Failure
- Attack Vector: Network.
- Effect: Network partition/consensus split.
- Scope: Any affected Zebra node.
Fixed Versions
This issue is fixed in Zebra 4.4.1.
Mitigation
Users should upgrade to Zebra 4.4.1 or later immediately.
There are no known workarounds for this issue. Immediate upgrade is the only way to ensure the node remains on the correct consensus path and is protected against malicious chain forks.
Credits
Zebra thanks @sangsoo-osec, @zmanian, and @fivelittleducks for finding and reporting the issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "zebrad"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.4.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "zebra-script"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.0.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354",
"CWE-573"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-08T18:27:26Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "# Consensus Divergence in V5 Transparent SIGHASH_SINGLE With No Corresponding Output\n\n## Summary\n\nZebra failed to enforce a ZIP-244 consensus rule for V5 transparent transactions: when an input is signed with `SIGHASH_SINGLE` and there is no transparent output at the same index as that input, validation must fail. Zebra instead asked the underlying sighash library to compute a digest, and that library produced a digest over an empty output set rather than failing. An attacker could craft a V5 transaction with more transparent inputs than outputs that Zebra accepts but `zcashd` rejects, creating a consensus split between Zebra and `zcashd` nodes.\n\nA previous fix ([`GHSA-cwfq-rfcr-8hmp`](https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/security/advisories/GHSA-cwfq-rfcr-8hmp)) addressed a closely related case in the same area of the code, but did not cover this specific one. \n\n## Severity\n\n**Critical** - This is a Consensus Vulnerability that could allow a malicious party to induce network partitioning, service disruption, and potential double-spend attacks against affected nodes.\n\nNote that the impact is currently alleviated by the fact that currently most miners run `zcashd`.\n\n## Affected Versions\n\nZebra 4.4.0.\n\n## Description\n\nVerification of transparent transactions inherits the Bitcoin Script verification code in C++. Since it is consensus-critical, this code is called from Zebra through a foreign function interface (FFI), with a Rust callback that computes the sighash for each input being verified.\n\nZIP-244 \u00a7S.2a marks two situations as consensus failure for V5 transparent signatures:\n\n1. The signed hash type is not one of the six canonical values; and\n2. The hash type is `SIGHASH_SINGLE` (alone or combined with `ANYONECANPAY`) and the input has no transparent output at the same index.\n\n`zcashd` enforces both rules: its `SignatureHash` raises an exception, and `CheckSig` catches it and fails the script. A previous fix (`GHSA-cwfq-rfcr-8hmp`) added the first rule to Zebra\u0027s V5 sighash callback. The second rule, however, was not added \u2014 Zebra\u0027s callback forwarded the request to `librustzcash`\u0027s ZIP-244 implementation, which handles an out-of-range `SIGHASH_SINGLE` output index by hashing an empty output set rather than refusing to produce a digest. As a result, Zebra would compute a well-defined sighash for the missing-output case and accept any signature that verified against it.\n\nAn attacker could exploit this by:\n\n- Constructing a V5 transaction with two or more transparent inputs and fewer transparent outputs;\n- Signing an input whose index has no matching `vout` entry with `SIGHASH_SINGLE` (`0x03`) or `SIGHASH_SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY` (`0x83`), using the digest Zebra computes;\n- Broadcasting the transaction, or a block containing it, to the network.\n\nZebra would verify the transaction\u0027s transparent script and accept the transaction (and any block containing it), while `zcashd` would reject both, splitting Zebra nodes from the rest of the network.\n\n## Impact\n\n**Consensus Failure**\n\n- **Attack Vector:** Network.\n- **Effect:** Network partition/consensus split.\n- **Scope:** Any affected Zebra node.\n\n## Fixed Versions\n\nThis issue is fixed in Zebra 4.4.1.\n\n## Mitigation\n\nUsers should upgrade to Zebra 4.4.1 or later immediately.\n\nThere are no known workarounds for this issue. Immediate upgrade is the only way to ensure the node remains on the correct consensus path and is protected against malicious chain forks.\n\n## Credits\n\nZebra thanks @sangsoo-osec, @zmanian, and @fivelittleducks for finding and reporting the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-pvmv-cwg8-v6c8",
"modified": "2026-05-08T18:27:26Z",
"published": "2026-05-08T18:27:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/security/advisories/GHSA-pvmv-cwg8-v6c8"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Zebra v4.4.0 still accepts V5 SIGHASH_SINGLE without a corresponding output"
}
GHSA-PXM9-CF3X-RRC5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-12 03:31 – Updated: 2023-12-14 00:30A missing integrity check in the update system in ProLion CryptoSpike 3.0.15P2 allows attackers to execute OS commands as the root Linux user on the host system via forged update packages.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-36650"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-12T01:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A missing integrity check in the update system in ProLion CryptoSpike 3.0.15P2 allows attackers to execute OS commands as the root Linux user on the host system via forged update packages.",
"id": "GHSA-pxm9-cf3x-rrc5",
"modified": "2023-12-14T00:30:25Z",
"published": "2023-12-12T03:31:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-36650"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cvcn.gov.it/cvcn/cve/CVE-2023-36650"
}
],
"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-Q36W-WXGM-W8F4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:09 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:09There is an Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value Vulnerability in Huawei Smartphone.Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause the system to reset.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-22442"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-02T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "There is an Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value Vulnerability in Huawei Smartphone.Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may cause the system to reset.",
"id": "GHSA-q36w-wxgm-w8f4",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:09:32Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:09:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22442"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://consumer.huawei.com/en/support/bulletin/2021/6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-Q6J5-FJX5-2MC3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-26 22:53 – Updated: 2026-06-26 22:53Summary
pnpm's tarball extraction worker skips integrity verification when the integrity field is absent from the lockfile resolution. If an attacker can both modify pnpm-lock.yaml to remove the integrity: field and cause the referenced registry URL to serve altered package content, pnpm install --frozen-lockfile can install the altered package without an integrity error. npm's npm ci enforces integrity by default; pnpm's behavior of silently skipping verification is a pnpm-specific fail-open gap.
Vulnerability Details
The addTarballToStore function in worker/src/start.ts (lines 189-204) checks if (integrity) before verifying the tarball hash. The TarballResolution type declares integrity as optional (integrity?: string). When the lockfile omits the integrity field, the guard evaluates to false, skipping hash verification entirely. The worker then computes a new hash from the unverified content and stores it as legitimate.
// worker/src/start.ts:189-204
function addTarballToStore ({ buffer, storeDir, integrity, ... }: TarballExtractMessage) {
if (integrity) { // false when integrity is undefined
const { algorithm, hexDigest } = parseIntegrity(integrity)
const calculatedHash = crypto.hash(algorithm, buffer, 'hex')
if (calculatedHash !== hexDigest) {
return { status: 'error', error: { type: 'integrity_validation_failed', ... } }
}
}
return {
status: 'success',
value: { integrity: integrity ?? calcIntegrity(buffer) },
}
}
Proof of Concept
bash autofyn_audit/exploits/vuln1_integrity_bypass/exploit.sh
# Publishes a package, generates lockfile, republishes tampered version,
# strips integrity field, re-runs install --frozen-lockfile.
# Result: PASS -- tampered package installed without integrity error.
Impact
Supply chain compromise in environments where an attacker can both alter the lockfile and cause the referenced registry URL to serve altered package content. The --frozen-lockfile flag does not fail closed when the integrity field is missing.
Suggested Remediation
Require an integrity field for remote tarball resolutions. Change the if (integrity) guard to fail when integrity is absent for non-local packages. When --frozen-lockfile is active, reject lockfile entries that lack integrity for remote packages.
Discovered by AutoFyn Full audit report: audit_report.md Exploit script: exploit.sh
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "pnpm"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "11.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "11.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "pnpm"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "10.34.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-50021"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-26T22:53:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-25T18:16:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\npnpm\u0027s tarball extraction worker skips integrity verification when the `integrity` field is absent from the lockfile resolution. If an attacker can both modify `pnpm-lock.yaml` to remove the `integrity:` field and cause the referenced registry URL to serve altered package content, `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` can install the altered package without an integrity error. npm\u0027s `npm ci` enforces integrity by default; pnpm\u0027s behavior of silently skipping verification is a pnpm-specific fail-open gap.\n\n## Vulnerability Details\n\nThe `addTarballToStore` function in `worker/src/start.ts` (lines 189-204) checks `if (integrity)` before verifying the tarball hash. The `TarballResolution` type declares `integrity` as optional (`integrity?: string`). When the lockfile omits the `integrity` field, the guard evaluates to `false`, skipping hash verification entirely. The worker then computes a new hash from the unverified content and stores it as legitimate.\n\n```typescript\n// worker/src/start.ts:189-204\nfunction addTarballToStore ({ buffer, storeDir, integrity, ... }: TarballExtractMessage) {\n if (integrity) { // false when integrity is undefined\n const { algorithm, hexDigest } = parseIntegrity(integrity)\n const calculatedHash = crypto.hash(algorithm, buffer, \u0027hex\u0027)\n if (calculatedHash !== hexDigest) {\n return { status: \u0027error\u0027, error: { type: \u0027integrity_validation_failed\u0027, ... } }\n }\n }\n return {\n status: \u0027success\u0027,\n value: { integrity: integrity ?? calcIntegrity(buffer) },\n }\n}\n```\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\n```bash\nbash autofyn_audit/exploits/vuln1_integrity_bypass/exploit.sh\n# Publishes a package, generates lockfile, republishes tampered version,\n# strips integrity field, re-runs install --frozen-lockfile.\n# Result: PASS -- tampered package installed without integrity error.\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nSupply chain compromise in environments where an attacker can both alter the lockfile and cause the referenced registry URL to serve altered package content. The `--frozen-lockfile` flag does not fail closed when the integrity field is missing.\n\n## Suggested Remediation\n\nRequire an `integrity` field for remote tarball resolutions. Change the `if (integrity)` guard to fail when integrity is absent for non-local packages. When `--frozen-lockfile` is active, reject lockfile entries that lack integrity for remote packages.\n\n---\n\n\u003e Discovered by [AutoFyn](https://github.com/SignalPilot-Labs/AutoFyn)\n\u003e Full audit report: [audit_report.md](https://github.com/tempcollab/pnpm/blob/main/autofyn_audit/audit_report.md)\n\u003e Exploit script: [exploit.sh](https://github.com/tempcollab/pnpm/blob/main/autofyn_audit/exploits/vuln1_integrity_bypass/exploit.sh)",
"id": "GHSA-q6j5-fjx5-2mc3",
"modified": "2026-06-26T22:53:01Z",
"published": "2026-06-26T22:53:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm/security/advisories/GHSA-q6j5-fjx5-2mc3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-50021"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pnpm/pnpm"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "pnpm Has an Integrity Check Bypass via Missing Lockfile Integrity Field"
}
GHSA-Q8JC-HPCV-JMXW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:00 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:37One Identity Cloud Access Manager before 8.1.4 Hotfix 1 allows OTP bypass via vectors involving a man in the middle, the One Identity Defender product, and replacing a failed SAML response with a successful SAML response.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-13496"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-11-04T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "One Identity Cloud Access Manager before 8.1.4 Hotfix 1 allows OTP bypass via vectors involving a man in the middle, the One Identity Defender product, and replacing a failed SAML response with a successful SAML response.",
"id": "GHSA-q8jc-hpcv-jmxw",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:37:58Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:00:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-13496"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FurqanKhan1/CVE-2019-13496"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.oneidentity.com/cloud-access-manager/kb/311391/cloud-access-manager-8-1-4-hotfix-1"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QM3C-X5C3-G2G4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:12 – Updated: 2023-02-03 21:30There is an improper integrity checking vulnerability on some huawei products. The software of the affected product has an improper integrity check which may allow an attacker with high privilege to make malicious modifications.Affected product versions include:HEGE-560 versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);HEGE-570 versions 1.0.1.22(SP3);OSCA-550 versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);OSCA-550A versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);OSCA-550AX versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);OSCA-550X versions 1.0.1.21(SP3).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-1879"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-20T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "There is an improper integrity checking vulnerability on some huawei products. The software of the affected product has an improper integrity check which may allow an attacker with high privilege to make malicious modifications.Affected product versions include:HEGE-560 versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);HEGE-570 versions 1.0.1.22(SP3);OSCA-550 versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);OSCA-550A versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);OSCA-550AX versions 1.0.1.21(SP3);OSCA-550X versions 1.0.1.21(SP3).",
"id": "GHSA-qm3c-x5c3-g2g4",
"modified": "2023-02-03T21:30:30Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:12:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-1879"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20200311-01-integrity-en"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20200415-02-dos-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QRM9-295F-XG65
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-21 00:00 – Updated: 2025-05-28 18:32An exploitable firmware downgrade vulnerability was discovered on the Netgear WPN824EXT WiFi Range Extender. An attacker can conduct a MITM attack to replace the user-uploaded firmware image with an original old firmware image. This affects Firmware 1.1.1_1.1.9 and earlier.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-38956"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-20T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An exploitable firmware downgrade vulnerability was discovered on the Netgear WPN824EXT WiFi Range Extender. An attacker can conduct a MITM attack to replace the user-uploaded firmware image with an original old firmware image. This affects Firmware 1.1.1_1.1.9 and earlier.",
"id": "GHSA-qrm9-295f-xg65",
"modified": "2025-05-28T18:32:59Z",
"published": "2022-09-21T00:00:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-38956"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackmd.io/%40eupX2KdkT6iNpqJUWk9p4A/SyAnOSd1s"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackmd.io/@eupX2KdkT6iNpqJUWk9p4A/SyAnOSd1s"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.netgear.com/about/security"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QVJW-73XM-JW34
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-10 00:30 – Updated: 2026-04-29 15:30A padding oracle exists in wolfSSL's PKCS7 CBC decryption that could allow an attacker to recover plaintext through repeated decryption queries with modified ciphertext. In previous versions of wolfSSL the interior padding bytes are not validated.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-5504"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-354"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-09T23:17:01Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A padding oracle exists in wolfSSL\u0027s PKCS7 CBC decryption that could allow an attacker to recover plaintext through repeated decryption queries with modified ciphertext. In previous versions of wolfSSL the interior padding bytes are not validated.",
"id": "GHSA-qvjw-73xm-jw34",
"modified": "2026-04-29T15:30:35Z",
"published": "2026-04-10T00:30:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5504"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/10088"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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"
}
]
}
Mitigation
Ensure that the checksums present in messages are properly checked in accordance with the protocol specification before they are parsed and used.
CAPEC-145: Checksum Spoofing
An adversary spoofs a checksum message for the purpose of making a payload appear to have a valid corresponding checksum. Checksums are used to verify message integrity. They consist of some value based on the value of the message they are protecting. Hash codes are a common checksum mechanism. Both the sender and recipient are able to compute the checksum based on the contents of the message. If the message contents change between the sender and recipient, the sender and recipient will compute different checksum values. Since the sender's checksum value is transmitted with the message, the recipient would know that a modification occurred. In checksum spoofing an adversary modifies the message body and then modifies the corresponding checksum so that the recipient's checksum calculation will match the checksum (created by the adversary) in the message. This would prevent the recipient from realizing that a change occurred.
CAPEC-463: Padding Oracle Crypto Attack
An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext. A target system that leaks this type of information becomes the padding oracle and an adversary is able to make use of that oracle to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key by issuing on average 128*b calls to the padding oracle (where b is the number of bytes in the ciphertext block). In addition to performing decryption, an adversary is also able to produce valid ciphertexts (i.e., perform encryption) by using the padding oracle, all without knowing the encryption key.
CAPEC-75: Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users.