6560 matches found
angular-lunarc-blog (>=0.0.1, <=0.0.3), angular-lunarc-core (>=0.0.2, <=0.0.5) +15 more potentially affected by CVE-2018-11537 via angular-jwt (>=0.0.7, <=0.1.9)
angular-jwt NPM version =0.0.7, =0.0.1, =0.0.2, =0.0.1, =4.0.0, =1.0.0, =2.0.0, =4.0.0, =3.0.19, =3.1.0, =7.0.0, =3.0.0, =1.0.0-alpha.6, =0.2.4, =0.0.1, =0.5.0 and more Source cves: CVE-2018-11537 Source advisory: MEND:CVE-2018-11537...
CVE-2018-11537
Auth0 angular-jwt before 0.1.10 treats whiteListedDomains entries as regular expressions, which allows remote attackers with knowledge of the jwtInterceptorProvider.whiteListedDomains setting to bypass the domain whitelist filter via a crafted domain...
CVE-2018-11537
Auth0 angular-jwt before 0.1.10 treats whiteListedDomains entries as regular expressions, which allows remote attackers with knowledge of the jwtInterceptorProvider.whiteListedDomains setting to bypass the domain whitelist filter via a crafted domain...
CVE-2018-11537
Auth0 angular-jwt (before v0.1.10) is affected: entries in whiteListedDomains are treated as regular expressions, allowing a crafted domain to bypass the domain allowlist/whitelist filter. This misinterpretation can enable unauthorized access by crafting domains that match the regex pattern (e.g....
PT-2018-10645
Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions angular-jwt versions prior to 0.1.10 Description The issue allows remote attackers with knowledge of the jwtInterceptorProvider.whiteListedDomains setting to bypass the domain allowlist filter via a crafted domain. This is because the...
CVE-2018-11537: Improper Input Validation
Auth0 angular-jwt before 0.1.10 treats whiteListedDomains entries as regular expressions, which allows remote attackers with knowledge of the jwtInterceptorProvider.whiteListedDomains setting to bypass the domain whitelist filter via a crafted domain...
CVE-2016-10555
Since "algorithm" isn't enforced in jwt.decodein jwt-simple 0.3.0 and earlier, a malicious user could choose what algorithm is sent sent to the server. If the server is expecting RSA but is sent HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, the server will think the public key is actually an HMAC private key...
CVE-2016-10555
Since "algorithm" isn't enforced in jwt.decodein jwt-simple 0.3.0 and earlier, a malicious user could choose what algorithm is sent sent to the server. If the server is expecting RSA but is sent HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, the server will think the public key is actually an HMAC private key...
Code injection
Since "algorithm" isn't enforced in jwt.decodein jwt-simple 0.3.0 and earlier, a malicious user could choose what algorithm is sent sent to the server. If the server is expecting RSA but is sent HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, the server will think the public key is actually an HMAC private key...
CVE-2016-10555
Since "algorithm" isn't enforced in jwt.decodein jwt-simple 0.3.0 and earlier, a malicious user could choose what algorithm is sent sent to the server. If the server is expecting RSA but is sent HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, the server will think the public key is actually an HMAC private key...
@sysdoc/sysdoc-web-stack (1.0.0), ac-koa-hipchat (>=0.1.0, <=0.2.20) +181 more potentially affected by CVE-2016-10555 via jwt-simple (>=0.1.0, <=0.3.0)
jwt-simple NPM version =0.1.0, =0.1.0, =0.1.0, =1.1.0, =0.0.1, =0.1.0, =1.0.0, =0.0.7, =0.2.12, =0.5.3, =0.1.0, =0.0.2, =1.1.1, =1.3.1 and more Source cves: CVE-2016-10555 Source advisory: MEND:CVE-2016-10555...
CVE-2016-10555
Since "algorithm" isn't enforced in jwt.decodein jwt-simple 0.3.0 and earlier, a malicious user could choose what algorithm is sent sent to the server. If the server is expecting RSA but is sent HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, the server will think the public key is actually an HMAC private key...
CVE-2016-10555
The CVE-2016-10555 issue affects the jwt-simple library (Node.js). It arises because jwt.decode() does not strictly enforce the algorithm, allowing a malicious user to choose the JWT verification algorithm. If a server expects RSA but receives an HMAC-SHA with RSA’s public key, the public key cou...
CVE-2016-10555: Improper Input Validation
Since "algorithm" isn't enforced in jwt.decodein jwt-simple 0.3.0 and earlier, a malicious user could choose what algorithm is sent sent to the server. If the server is expecting RSA but is sent HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, the server will think the public key is actually an HMAC private key...
PT-2018-4733
Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions jwt-simple versions 0.3.0 and earlier Description The issue allows a malicious user to choose the algorithm sent to the server, potentially bypassing authentication. If the server expects RSA but receives HMAC-SHA with RSA's public key, it may...
Authentication Bypass
json-jwt is vulnerable to authentication bypasses. The library does not properly validate the GCM auth tag length, allowing a malicious user to require at most 256 attempts to forge a valid auth tag...
Auth tag forgery vulnerability with AES-GCM encrypted JWT
Ruby's OpenSSL bindings do not check the length of the supplied authentication tag when decrypting an authenticated encryption mode such as AES-GCM, leaving this up to the authors of a gem/app to implement for properly validating the message. json-jwt was not checking for the authentication tag...
REST API Penetration Testing: Astra
REST API penetration testing is complex due to continuous changes in existing APIs and newly added APIs. Astra can be used by security engineers or developers as an integral part of their process, so they can detect and patch vulnerabilities early during development cycle. Astra can automatically...
Authentication Bypass Vulnerability Found in Auth0 Identity Platform
A critical authentication bypass vulnerability has been discovered in one of the biggest identity-as-a-service platform Auth0 that could have allowed a malicious attacker to access any portal or application, which are using Auth0 service for authentication. Auth0 offers token-based authentication...