Total
711 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-55229 | 1 Microsoft | 13 Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607, Windows 10 1809 and 10 more | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Windows Certificates allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network. | |||||
| CVE-2025-55039 | 1 Apache | 1 Spark | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| This issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0. Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes. When spark.network.crypto.enabled is set to true (it is set to false by default), but spark.network.crypto.cipher is not explicitly configured, Spark defaults to AES in CTR mode (AES/CTR/NoPadding), which provides encryption without authentication. This vulnerability allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to modify encrypted RPC traffic undetected by flipping bits in ciphertext, potentially compromising heartbeat messages or application data and affecting the integrity of Spark workflows. To mitigate this issue, users should either configure spark.network.crypto.cipher to AES/GCM/NoPadding to enable authenticated encryption or enable SSL encryption by setting spark.ssl.enabled to true, which provides stronger transport security. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54982 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.6 CRITICAL | ||
| An improper verification of cryptographic signature in Zscaler's SAML authentication mechanism on the server-side allowed an authentication abuse. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54549 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.9 MEDIUM | ||
| Cryptographic validation of upgrade images could be circumventing by dropping a specifically crafted file into the upgrade ISO | |||||
| CVE-2025-54419 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 10.0 CRITICAL | ||
| A SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In version 5.0.1, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. To conduct the attack an attacker would need a validly signed document from the identity provider (IdP). This is fixed in version 5.1.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-54369 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Node-SAML is a SAML library not dependent on any frameworks that runs in Node. In versions 5.0.1 and below, Node-SAML loads the assertion from the (unsigned) original response document. This is different than the parts that are verified when checking signature. This allows an attacker to modify authentication details within a valid SAML assertion. For example, in one attack it is possible to remove any character from the SAML assertion username. This issue is fixed in version 5.1.0. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52648 | 1 Hcl | 1 Aion | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.8 MEDIUM |
| HCL AION is affected by a vulnerability where offering images are not digitally signed. Lack of image signing may allow the use of unverified or tampered images, potentially leading to security risks such as integrity compromise or unintended behavior in the system | |||||
| CVE-2025-52556 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | N/A | ||
| rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue. | |||||
| CVE-2025-52550 | 1 Copeland | 8 E3 Supervisory Controller Firmware, Site Supervisor Bx 860-1240, Site Supervisor Bxe 860-1245 and 5 more | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.2 HIGH |
| E3 Site Supervisor Control (firmware version < 2.31F01) firmware upgrade packages are unsigned. An attacker can forge malicious firmware upgrade packages. An attacker with admin access to the application services can install a malicious firmware upgrade. | |||||
| CVE-2025-4658 | 1 Openpubkey | 2 Openpubkey, Opkssh | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| Versions of OpenPubkey library prior to 0.10.0 contained a vulnerability that would allow a specially crafted JWS to bypass signature verification. As OPKSSH depends on the OpenPubkey library for authentication, this vulnerability in OpenPubkey also applies to OPKSSH versions prior to 0.5.0 and would allow an attacker to bypass OPKSSH authentication. | |||||
| CVE-2025-4371 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.8 MEDIUM | ||
| A potential vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo 510 FHD and Performance FHD web cameras that could allow an attacker with physical access to write arbitrary firmware updates to the device over a USB connection. | |||||
| CVE-2025-47949 | 1 Samlify Project | 1 Samlify | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| samlify is a Node.js library for SAML single sign-on. A Signature Wrapping attack has been found in samlify prior to version 2.10.0, allowing an attacker to forge a SAML Response to authenticate as any user. An attacker would need a signed XML document by the identity provider. Version 2.10.0 fixes the issue. | |||||
| CVE-2025-47934 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | N/A | ||
| OpenPGP.js is a JavaScript implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. Startinf in version 5.0.1 and prior to versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1, a maliciously modified message can be passed to either `openpgp.verify` or `openpgp.decrypt`, causing these functions to return a valid signature verification result while returning data that was not actually signed. This flaw allows signature verifications of inline (non-detached) signed messages (using `openpgp.verify`) and signed-and-encrypted messages (using `openpgp.decrypt` with `verificationKeys`) to be spoofed, since both functions return extracted data that may not match the data that was originally signed. Detached signature verifications are not affected, as no signed data is returned in that case. In order to spoof a message, the attacker needs a single valid message signature (inline or detached) as well as the plaintext data that was legitimately signed, and can then construct an inline-signed message or signed-and-encrypted message with any data of the attacker's choice, which will appear as legitimately signed by affected versions of OpenPGP.js. In other words, any inline-signed message can be modified to return any other data (while still indicating that the signature was valid), and the same is true for signed+encrypted messages if the attacker can obtain a valid signature and encrypt a new message (of the attacker's choice) together with that signature. The issue has been patched in versions 5.11.3 and 6.1.1. Some workarounds are available. When verifying inline-signed messages, extract the message and signature(s) from the message returned by `openpgp.readMessage`, and verify the(/each) signature as a detached signature by passing the signature and a new message containing only the data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. When decrypting and verifying signed+encrypted messages, decrypt and verify the message in two steps, by first calling `openpgp.decrypt` without `verificationKeys`, and then passing the returned signature(s) and a new message containing the decrypted data (created using `openpgp.createMessage`) to `openpgp.verify`. | |||||
| CVE-2025-47827 | 2 Igel, Microsoft | 16 Igel Os, Windows 10 1507, Windows 10 1607 and 13 more | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.6 MEDIUM |
| In IGEL OS before 11, Secure Boot can be bypassed because the igel-flash-driver module improperly verifies a cryptographic signature. Ultimately, a crafted root filesystem can be mounted from an unverified SquashFS image. | |||||
| CVE-2025-46774 | 1 Fortinet | 1 Forticlient | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| An Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability [CWE-347] in FortiClient MacOS installer version 7.4.2 and below, version 7.2.9 and below, 7.0 all versions may allow a local user to escalate their privileges via FortiClient related executables. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43903 | 1 Freedesktop | 1 Poppler | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| NSSCryptoSignBackend.cc in Poppler before 25.04.0 does not verify the adbe.pkcs7.sha1 signatures on documents, resulting in potential signature forgeries. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43522 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 3.3 LOW |
| A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.3, macOS Tahoe 26.2. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43521 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.3, macOS Tahoe 26.2. An app may be able to access sensitive user data. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43468 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access sensitive user data. | |||||
| CVE-2025-43390 | 1 Apple | 1 Macos | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| A downgrade issue affecting Intel-based Mac computers was addressed with additional code-signing restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access user-sensitive data. | |||||