CWE-494
AllowedDownload of Code Without Integrity Check
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
292 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-QC9C-3CXH-J47W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:56 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:55Philips IntelliVue WLAN, portable patient monitors, WLAN Version A, Firmware A.03.09, WLAN Version A, Firmware A.03.09, Part #: M8096-67501, WLAN Version B, Firmware A.01.09, Part #: N/A (Replaced by Version C) and WLAN Version B, Firmware A.01.09, Part #: N/A (Replaced by Version C). The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-13534"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-12T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Philips IntelliVue WLAN, portable patient monitors, WLAN Version A, Firmware A.03.09, WLAN Version A, Firmware A.03.09, Part #: M8096-67501, WLAN Version B, Firmware A.01.09, Part #: N/A (Replaced by Version C) and WLAN Version B, Firmware A.01.09, Part #: N/A (Replaced by Version C). The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.",
"id": "GHSA-qc9c-3cxh-j47w",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:55:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:56:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-13534"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsma-19-255-01"
}
],
"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-QFXP-HCQ8-C568
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-05 12:30 – Updated: 2023-12-05 12:30Multiple data integrity vulnerabilities exist in the package hash checking functionality of Buildroot 2023.08.1 and Buildroot dev commit 622698d7847. A specially crafted man-in-the-middle attack can lead to arbitrary command execution in the builder.This vulnerability is related to the aufs-util package.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45839"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-05T12:15:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple data integrity vulnerabilities exist in the package hash checking functionality of Buildroot 2023.08.1 and Buildroot dev commit 622698d7847. A specially crafted man-in-the-middle attack can lead to arbitrary command execution in the builder.This vulnerability is related to the `aufs-util` package.",
"id": "GHSA-qfxp-hcq8-c568",
"modified": "2023-12-05T12:30:45Z",
"published": "2023-12-05T12:30:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45839"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2023-1844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2023-1844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/12/11/1"
}
],
"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-QPR3-RQ65-76FJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-27 15:30 – Updated: 2025-10-27 18:31An issue in the Web Configuration module of Startcharge Artemis AC Charger 7-22 kW v1.0.4 allows authenticated network-adjacent attackers to upload crafted firmware, leading to arbitrary code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-52263"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-27T14:15:40Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue in the Web Configuration module of Startcharge Artemis AC Charger 7-22 kW v1.0.4 allows authenticated network-adjacent attackers to upload crafted firmware, leading to arbitrary code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-qpr3-rq65-76fj",
"modified": "2025-10-27T18:31:09Z",
"published": "2025-10-27T15:30:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-52263"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/HaToan/CVEs/blob/main/starcharge/README.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.starcharge.com/product/artemis"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-QRJ7-PX96-X7PW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:28 – Updated: 2024-01-01 00:30A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint when the software fails to check the source markup of an application package, aka 'Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability'. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2020-1200, CVE-2020-1210, CVE-2020-1452, CVE-2020-1453, CVE-2020-1595.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-1576"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-09-11T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A remote code execution vulnerability exists in Microsoft SharePoint when the software fails to check the source markup of an application package, aka \u0027Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability\u0027. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2020-1200, CVE-2020-1210, CVE-2020-1452, CVE-2020-1453, CVE-2020-1595.",
"id": "GHSA-qrj7-px96-x7pw",
"modified": "2024-01-01T00:30:42Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:28:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-1576"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://portal.msrc.microsoft.com/en-US/security-guidance/advisory/CVE-2020-1576"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RFVX-872W-6RPR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-15 00:31 – Updated: 2024-11-15 00:31The ventilator does not perform proper file integrity checks when adopting firmware updates. This makes it possible for an attacker to force unauthorized changes to the device's configuration settings and/or compromise device functionality by pushing a compromised/illegitimate firmware file. This could disrupt the function of the device and/or cause unauthorized information disclosure.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48974"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-14T22:15:18Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The ventilator does not perform proper file integrity checks when adopting firmware updates. This makes it possible for an attacker to force unauthorized changes to the device\u0027s configuration settings and/or compromise device functionality by pushing a compromised/illegitimate firmware file. This could disrupt the function of the device and/or cause unauthorized information disclosure.",
"id": "GHSA-rfvx-872w-6rpr",
"modified": "2024-11-15T00:31:51Z",
"published": "2024-11-15T00:31:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-medical-advisories/icsma-24-319-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RMWH-8JRH-HC23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:37 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:37Akeo Consulting Rufus prior to version 2.17.1187 does not adequately validate the integrity of updates downloaded over HTTP, allowing an attacker to easily convince a user to execute arbitrary code
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-13083"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295",
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-18T13:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Akeo Consulting Rufus prior to version 2.17.1187 does not adequately validate the integrity of updates downloaded over HTTP, allowing an attacker to easily convince a user to execute arbitrary code",
"id": "GHSA-rmwh-8jrh-hc23",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:37:44Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:37:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-13083"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/issues/1009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/commit/c3c39f7f8a11f612c4ebf7affce25ec6928eb1cb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/403768"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/100516"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RPJ9-VVGV-G3HF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:37 – Updated: 2025-10-14 00:31Sensys Networks VSN240-F and VSN240-T sensors VDS before 2.10.1 and TrafficDOT before 2.10.3 do not verify the integrity of downloaded updates, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse update.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-2378"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494",
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-09-05T17:55:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Sensys Networks VSN240-F and VSN240-T sensors VDS before 2.10.1 and TrafficDOT before 2.10.3 do not verify the integrity of downloaded updates, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse update.",
"id": "GHSA-rpj9-vvgv-g3hf",
"modified": "2025-10-14T00:31:01Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:37:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-2378"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-247-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-advisories/icsa-14-247-01a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.sensysnetworks.com/distributors"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.sensysnetworks.com/resources-by-category/#sw"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-RQM7-H39V-Q6CR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-29 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-06 00:00Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager (SM and FSC) through 2022-05-06 has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. According to FSCT-2022-0053, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager insufficient logic security controls issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell FSC runtime (FSC-CPU, QPP), Honeywell Safety Builder. The potential impact is: Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service. The Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager family of safety controllers utilize the unauthenticated Safety Builder protocol (FSCT-2022-0051) for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the controller. Control logic is downloaded to the controller on a block-by-block basis. The logic that is downloaded consists of FLD code compiled to native machine code for the CPU module (which applies to both the Safety Manager and FSC families). Since this logic does not seem to be cryptographically authenticated, it allows an attacker capable of triggering a logic download to execute arbitrary machine code on the controller's CPU module in the context of the runtime. While the researchers could not verify this in detail, the researchers believe that the microprocessor underpinning the FSC and Safety Manager CPU modules is incapable of offering memory protection or privilege separation capabilities which would give an attacker full control of the CPU module. There is no authentication on control logic downloaded to the controller. Memory protection and privilege separation capabilities for the runtime are possibly lacking. The researchers confirmed the issues in question on Safety Manager R145.1 and R152.2 but suspect the issue affects all FSC and SM controllers and associated Safety Builder versions regardless of software or firmware revision. An attacker who can communicate with a Safety Manager controller via the Safety Builder protocol can execute arbitrary code without restrictions on the CPU module, allowing for covert manipulation of control operations and implanting capabilities similar to the TRITON malware (MITRE ATT&CK software ID S1009). A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-30315"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-28T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager (SM and FSC) through 2022-05-06 has Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity. According to FSCT-2022-0053, there is a Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager insufficient logic security controls issue. The affected components are characterized as: Honeywell FSC runtime (FSC-CPU, QPP), Honeywell Safety Builder. The potential impact is: Remote Code Execution, Denial of Service. The Honeywell Experion PKS Safety Manager family of safety controllers utilize the unauthenticated Safety Builder protocol (FSCT-2022-0051) for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the controller. Control logic is downloaded to the controller on a block-by-block basis. The logic that is downloaded consists of FLD code compiled to native machine code for the CPU module (which applies to both the Safety Manager and FSC families). Since this logic does not seem to be cryptographically authenticated, it allows an attacker capable of triggering a logic download to execute arbitrary machine code on the controller\u0027s CPU module in the context of the runtime. While the researchers could not verify this in detail, the researchers believe that the microprocessor underpinning the FSC and Safety Manager CPU modules is incapable of offering memory protection or privilege separation capabilities which would give an attacker full control of the CPU module. There is no authentication on control logic downloaded to the controller. Memory protection and privilege separation capabilities for the runtime are possibly lacking. The researchers confirmed the issues in question on Safety Manager R145.1 and R152.2 but suspect the issue affects all FSC and SM controllers and associated Safety Builder versions regardless of software or firmware revision. An attacker who can communicate with a Safety Manager controller via the Safety Builder protocol can execute arbitrary code without restrictions on the CPU module, allowing for covert manipulation of control operations and implanting capabilities similar to the TRITON malware (MITRE ATT\u0026CK software ID S1009). A mitigating factor with regards to some, but not all, of the above functionality is that these require the Safety Manager physical keyswitch to be in the right position.",
"id": "GHSA-rqm7-h39v-q6cr",
"modified": "2022-08-06T00:00:33Z",
"published": "2022-07-29T00:00:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-30315"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-207-02"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.forescout.com/blog"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-RRRJ-WQPH-2CMR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:48 – Updated: 2022-05-24 16:48The ABB CP635 HMI uses two different transmission methods to upgrade its firmware and its software components: "Utilization of USB/SD Card to flash the device" and "Remote provisioning process via ABB Panel Builder 600 over FTP." Neither of these transmission methods implements any form of encryption or authenticity checks against the new firmware HMI software binary files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7229"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-295",
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-24T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The ABB CP635 HMI uses two different transmission methods to upgrade its firmware and its software components: \"Utilization of USB/SD Card to flash the device\" and \"Remote provisioning process via ABB Panel Builder 600 over FTP.\" Neither of these transmission methods implements any form of encryption or authenticity checks against the new firmware HMI software binary files.",
"id": "GHSA-rrrj-wqph-2cmr",
"modified": "2022-05-24T16:48:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:48:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7229"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=3ADR010376\u0026LanguageCode=en\u0026DocumentPartId=\u0026Action=Launch"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=3ADR010402\u0026LanguageCode=en\u0026DocumentPartId=\u0026Action=Launch"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.darkmatter.ae/xen1thlabs/abb-hmi-absence-of-signature-verification-vulnerability-xl-19-005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/153387/ABB-HMI-Missing-Signature-Verification.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Jun/34"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-V46F-6X32-QW44
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-29 06:30 – Updated: 2023-12-05 15:30In Dreamer CMS before 4.0.1, the backend attachment management office has an Arbitrary File Download vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-46887"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-494"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-29T05:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Dreamer CMS before 4.0.1, the backend attachment management office has an Arbitrary File Download vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-v46f-6x32-qw44",
"modified": "2023-12-05T15:30:34Z",
"published": "2023-11-29T06:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-46887"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitee.com/iteachyou/dreamer_cms/issues/I6NDEZ"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-42
Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
Mitigation
- Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting.
- This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code.
- When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses.
- Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
CAPEC-184: Software Integrity Attack
An attacker initiates a series of events designed to cause a user, program, server, or device to perform actions which undermine the integrity of software code, device data structures, or device firmware, achieving the modification of the target's integrity to achieve an insecure state.
CAPEC-185: Malicious Software Download
An attacker uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code that originates from an attacker controlled source. There are several variations to this strategy of attack.
CAPEC-186: Malicious Software Update
An adversary uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code believed to be a valid update that originates from an adversary controlled source.
CAPEC-187: Malicious Automated Software Update via Redirection
An attacker exploits two layers of weaknesses in server or client software for automated update mechanisms to undermine the integrity of the target code-base. The first weakness involves a failure to properly authenticate a server as a source of update or patch content. This type of weakness typically results from authentication mechanisms which can be defeated, allowing a hostile server to satisfy the criteria that establish a trust relationship. The second weakness is a systemic failure to validate the identity and integrity of code downloaded from a remote location, hence the inability to distinguish malicious code from a legitimate update.
CAPEC-533: Malicious Manual Software Update
An attacker introduces malicious code to the victim's system by altering the payload of a software update, allowing for additional compromise or site disruption at the victim location. These manual, or user-assisted attacks, vary from requiring the user to download and run an executable, to as streamlined as tricking the user to click a URL. Attacks which aim at penetrating a specific network infrastructure often rely upon secondary attack methods to achieve the desired impact. Spamming, for example, is a common method employed as an secondary attack vector. Thus the attacker has in their arsenal a choice of initial attack vectors ranging from traditional SMTP/POP/IMAP spamming and its varieties, to web-application mechanisms which commonly implement both chat and rich HTML messaging within the user interface.
CAPEC-538: Open-Source Library Manipulation
Adversaries implant malicious code in open source software (OSS) libraries to have it widely distributed, as OSS is commonly downloaded by developers and other users to incorporate into software development projects. The adversary can have a particular system in mind to target, or the implantation can be the first stage of follow-on attacks on many systems.
CAPEC-657: Malicious Automated Software Update via Spoofing
An attackers uses identify or content spoofing to trick a client into performing an automated software update from a malicious source. A malicious automated software update that leverages spoofing can include content or identity spoofing as well as protocol spoofing. Content or identity spoofing attacks can trigger updates in software by embedding scripted mechanisms within a malicious web page, which masquerades as a legitimate update source. Scripting mechanisms communicate with software components and trigger updates from locations specified by the attackers' server. The result is the client believing there is a legitimate software update available but instead downloading a malicious update from the attacker.
CAPEC-662: Adversary in the Browser (AiTB)
An adversary exploits security vulnerabilities or inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to manipulate traffic between two endpoints.
CAPEC-691: Spoof Open-Source Software Metadata
An adversary spoofs open-source software metadata in an attempt to masquerade malicious software as popular, maintained, and trusted.
CAPEC-692: Spoof Version Control System Commit Metadata
An adversary spoofs metadata pertaining to a Version Control System (VCS) (e.g., Git) repository's commits to deceive users into believing that the maliciously provided software is frequently maintained and originates from a trusted source.
CAPEC-693: StarJacking
An adversary spoofs software popularity metadata to deceive users into believing that a maliciously provided package is widely used and originates from a trusted source.
CAPEC-695: Repo Jacking
An adversary takes advantage of the redirect property of directly linked Version Control System (VCS) repositories to trick users into incorporating malicious code into their applications.