| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| As part of Cisco's ongoing commitment to proactive security and product quality, the engineering team for Cisco License On-Prem, formerly Cisco Smart Software Manager On-Prem (SSM On-Prem), has conducted a comprehensive internal security review. This review resulted in software hardening releases that address multiple internally discovered vulnerabilities.
The vulnerabilities tracked by CVE-2026-76482 are related to issues with improper input verification that are grouped under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Pillar CWE-347. |
| A flaw was found in sequoia-openpgp. The library incorrectly infers key flags for older certificates when a key flags subpacket is missing, leading to a discrepancy in how key capabilities are viewed. This key flag confusion allows an attacker to bypass the back-signature check. Consequently, an attacker can illegitimately bind an arbitrary subkey to their own certificate and forge signatures, completely compromising cryptographic integrity. |
| An issue in Mercusys AC12 V2 allows a local attacker to execute arbitrary code via the storage of information in plaintext |
| A flaw has been found in invariant-systems-ai aiir up to 1.7.0. The affected element is an unknown function of the component Policy Gate Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper verification of cryptographic signature. The attack can be executed remotely. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The GitHub repository of this project is not available anymore. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer. |
| In Progress® Telerik® Fiddler® Classic for Windows, versions prior to v6.0.20262.10021, the integrity check applied to the external helper tools launched by the application is insufficient. Before executing a helper tool, the application only verifies that the file carries a valid Authenticode signature whose certificate subject name matches a broad allow list of publisher name fragments, rather than verifying that the file is the specific executable shipped with that version of the product. A local threat actor with low privileges who replaces one of these helper executables with any other validly signed binary from an allow-listed publisher can cause the substituted binary to be executed by the application, including with Administrator privileges for the tools that request elevation, resulting in privilege escalation and execution of unintended code. Successful exploitation requires the user to launch the affected external tool and to approve the elevation prompt without noticing that it refers to a different executable. |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.4.0 until 2.14.0, PyJWT HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key is affected because asymmetric-key guard relies on textual markers that are absent from DER encoding. This occurs when an application mixes HMAC and asymmetric algorithms and supplies a DER public key as the shared verification key. As a result, PyJWT uses public DER bytes as an HMAC secret. Consequently, an attacker who knows the public key can forge authenticated HMAC tokens. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0. |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.13.0 until 2.14.0, HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key in jwt/algorithms.py is affected because raw-JWK detector does not normalize accepted Unicode byte-order marks before checking for JSON. This occurs when a public JWK is prefixed with a UTF-8 BOM and used in a mixed-algorithm verification path. As a result, public JWK bypasses asymmetric-key detection and becomes the HMAC secret. Consequently, an attacker who knows the public key can forge authenticated tokens. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0. |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.13.0 until 2.14.0, PyJWT HMACAlgorithm.prepare_key is affected because HMAC key guard only recognizes top-level public JWK forms and misses container representations. This occurs when an application allows HMAC and asymmetric algorithms and passes a public JWK container as the raw key. As a result, public asymmetric key material is accepted as the HMAC secret. Consequently, an attacker who knows the public key can forge a token with arbitrary authenticated claims. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0. |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. From 2.1.0 until 2.15.0, PyJWT OKPAlgorithm.from_jwk in jwt/algorithms.py is affected because private-JWK import path does not compare the public key derived from d with x. This occurs when an OKP private JWK supplies non-corresponding x and d components. As a result, identity derived from x can differ from operations performed with d. Consequently, if an integration also accepts private key parameters from a proof header without rejecting them, an attacker may use a stolen sender-constrained token without the legitimate private key. This issue is fixed in version 2.15.0. |
| OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an open redirect vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to redirect users by supplying an unverified id_token_hint to the /oauth2/connect/endSession endpoint. Attackers can name any realm client in a forged hint to redirect victims to any registered post-logout URI, enabling phishing that borrows the OpenAM host's trust. |
| Cryptographic Issue when processing non-ELF partitions, authentication and signature checks are bypassed, allowing unsigned or corrupted images to be mounted and processed. |
| Zebra before 4.4.0 contains a consensus divergence vulnerability in V5 transparent signature verification, computing a ZIP-244 digest for SIGHASH_SINGLE inputs lacking corresponding outputs instead of failing. Attackers can craft V5 transactions with fewer outputs than inputs that Zebra accepts and templates via getblocktemplate, producing blocks zcashd rejects. |
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, BLS12_381BasicScheme.keyValidate, and so BLSPublicKeyParameters and every BasicScheme, MessageAugmentation and ProofOfPossession verify and aggregateVerify that gate on it, accepted a public key built on a foreign ECCurve that merely shares BLS12-381's field characteristic. The prime-order subgroup check trusts a point's own curve to name its cofactor, since ECPoint.satisfiesOrder returns true outright when the curve's cofactor is one, so a point on a curve with a different equation and a cofactor forged to one passed keyValidate despite not being a G1 point at all. In BC's pairing implementation such a point contributes the identity in the target group, so an aggregate signature verified against a set of public keys including it is accepted even though it contains no signature for that key and message pair, admitting a phantom signer. keyValidate now first confirms that the point's curve carries exactly the canonical G1 field, equation, order and cofactor before any subgroup check. The issue is reachable only where an application constructs an ECPoint on an explicit, non-canonical curve and accepts it as an authority-bearing key; the standard 48-byte compressed-point decoder always supplies the canonical curve and was never affected. |
| In Bouncy Castle for Java before 1.86, the high-level OpenPGP API accepted a data signature made by a signing subkey whose Subkey Binding signature carried no embedded Primary Key Binding (cross-certification) signature, in the case where that binding omits a Key Flags subpacket. RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.1.8 and sec. 10.1.3 require the embedded Primary Key Binding signature on any subkey that can issue signatures; it is the subkey's own statement that it belongs to the primary key it is bound under. OpenPGPCertificate resolved the subkey's key flags two different ways. isSigningKey() goes through getKeyFlags() and getApplyingSubpacket(), which falls back to the primary key's direct-key or primary User ID self-signature when the binding signature omits the subpacket, so the subkey inherited the primary's SIGN_DATA and counted as signing-capable; verifyEmbeddedPrimaryKeyBinding(), which enforces the requirement, reads the binding signature's own hashed subpackets, found no SIGN_DATA there, and returned early as a non-signing key without ever demanding the back signature. The same subkey was therefore signing-capable - so its signatures were attributed to the certificate and OpenPGPSignature.OpenPGPDocumentSignature.isValid() returned true - while being exempt from cross-certification, where GnuPG refuses the identical certificate and message. An attacker needs only the victim's public signing subkey, which is public material: they bind it to their own primary key with a Subkey Binding signature they are able to make, carrying no Key Flags and no embedded Primary Key Binding signature, which they cannot make without the subkey's private key, and a relying party verifying one of the victim's genuinely signed messages against that certificate is told the signature is valid and given the attacker's certificate as its issuer. Because a certificate's User IDs are self-asserted, a verifier that pins on the subkey's fingerprint or key ID while taking the identity from the enclosing certificate reports a real signature under an attacker-chosen identity. This is misattribution of a genuine signature rather than forgery of a new one: no private key is recovered, and the signature must be one the grafted subkey actually made. The low-level PGPSignature / PGPPublicKeyRing API performs no binding checks by design and is unaffected. Key Flags are a statement about the key the carrying signature refers to (RFC 9580 sec. 5.2.3.29), so a subkey no longer inherits them from the certificate-wide signatures of the primary key: a Subkey Binding signature that omits the subpacket now leaves the subkey with no capabilities rather than the primary's, which makes the flags the cross-certification check consults the same flags every other decision consults. Preferences and the other subpackets a direct-key signature carries are inherited as before, and the primary key itself, whose flags legitimately come from its own direct-key or User ID self-signature, is unaffected. |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in the attribute certificate path validator (PkixAttrCertPathValidator, also used by PkixAttrCertPathBuilder) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows a remote attacker to have a forged X.509 attribute certificate accepted as valid, and so obtain whatever roles or privileges an application grants on the strength of its attributes, via an attribute certificate that names a trusted attribute authority as its issuer but was not signed by it, because the RFC 3281 validation steps check the holder and issuer certification paths, validity period, extensions and revocation status but never verify the attribute certificate's signature with the issuer's public key. Only applications that use these classes to validate attribute certificates are affected. |
| An authentication bypass in the DOM security processor in Apache WSS4J allows unauthenticated remote attackers to forge authenticated SOAP messages via a crafted unsigned SAML sender-vouches assertion containing an attacker-controlled key.
Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.0.2 or 3.0.6 or 2.4.4, which fix this issue. |
| This vulnerability enables unauthenticated remote code execution (RCE) on a victim's machine by exploiting a combination of cryptographic weaknesses and memory management issues in the SConnect native host component.
The attack leverages an unrestricted messaging interface between an attacker-controlled web page and the native host, allowing malicious input to bypass security checks. |
| Under WOLFSSL_SMALL_CERT_VERIFY, ProcessPeerCertParse() runs the certificate signature check separately from the parse to keep peak memory down, then merges the two results, but it merged the signature result back only when the parse returned 0, so any parse error hid it. ParseCertRelative() reaches its validity-date, name-constraint and critical-extension checks only after ConfirmSignature() has passed, so splitting the signature check out inverts the precedence that makes "override date errors" a sound policy, and ASN_SIG_CONFIRM_E is never surfaced anywhere. The attacker needs no key material from the real PKI and no CA compromise: a self-made certificate carrying the expected subject name, the trusted CA's subject as its issuer, arbitrary bytes where the signature goes, a validity window in the past and the attacker's own key pair is sufficient. Affected builds define WOLFSSL_SMALL_CERT_VERIFY, which is off by default, is not set implicitly by any platform or preset header, and is not reachable from any CMake option; the autotools routes are --enable-lowresource, --enable-leantls, --enable-tinytls13=cert and --enable-tinytls13=mutualauth, and examples/configs/user_settings_embedded.h reaches it through WC_CFG_SMALL_CERT_VERIFY, which ships as 0, while neither --enable-all nor --enable-distro enables it at all. The application must additionally install a verify callback through wolfSSL_CTX_set_verify() or wolfSSL_set_verify() with WOLFSSL_VERIFY_PEER that returns 1 for ASN_BEFORE_DATE_E or ASN_AFTER_DATE_E; wolfSSL ships this exact shape as myVerify() in wolfssl/test.h under VERIFY_OVERRIDE_DATE_ERR, which examples/client -D selects. An application with no callback, or whose callback returns preverify for date errors, still fails the handshake, and wolfSSL_CertManagerVerifyBuffer() and wc_CheckCertSignature() report ASN_SIG_CONFIRM_E correctly in the same binary. TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 are affected in both directions, and DTLS reaches the same function; where the forged certificate is a chain certificate the callback's consent causes it to be cached in the WOLFSSL_CTX certificate manager, so an exposed deployment must restart the context or the process rather than merely reconnect. |
| Zebra zebrad 4.4.0 and zebra-script 6.0.0 fail to enforce a ZIP-244 consensus rule, accepting V5 transparent inputs signed with SIGHASH_SINGLE that lack a corresponding output. Attackers can broadcast crafted V5 transactions with more inputs than outputs that Zebra accepts but zcashd rejects, causing a network consensus split. |
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature vulnerability exists in protocol gateways because the device does not properly verify the cryptographic authenticity of firmware images before installation. An attacker with high privileges and access to the firmware update interface could provide a specially crafted or modified firmware image, causing it to be installed on the device. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to execute unauthorized code, compromise the integrity and availability of the device, and persist malicious modifications across subsequent firmware updates. |
