https://cve.radiocsirt.org Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Tue, 06 Oct 2026 17:38:26 +0000 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cnvd-2021-20283 cnvd-2021-20283 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cnvd-2021-20283 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-42573 EUVD-2026-42573 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-42573 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2020-14966 <p>An issue was discovered in the jsrsasign package through 8.0.18 for Node.js. It allows a malleability in ECDSA signatures by not checking overflows in the length of a sequence and &#39;0&#39; characters appended or prepended to an integer. The modified signatures are verified as valid. This could have a security-relevant impact if an application relied on a single canonical signature.</p> <p>An issue was discovered in the jsrsasign package through 8.0.18 for Node.js. It allows a malleability in ECDSA signatures by not checking overflows in the length of a sequence and &#39;0&#39; characters appended or prepended to an integer. The modified signatures are verified as valid. This could have a security-relevant impact if an application relied on a single canonical signature.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2020-14966 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-p8c3-7rj8-q963 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> npm: jsrsasign</p> <p>### Impact Jsrsasign supports ECDSA signature validation which signature value is represented by ASN.1 DER encoding. This vulnerablity may accept a wrong ASN.1 DER encoded ECDSA signature such as:</p> <p>- wrong multi-byte ASN.1 length of TLV (ex. 0x820045 even though 0x45 is correct) - prepending zeros with ASN.1 INTEGER value (ex. 0x00000123 even though 0x0123 is correct) - appending zeros to signature of ASN.1 TLV (ex. 0x3082....1fbc000000 even though 0x3082....1fbc, appending zeros are ignored.)</p> <p>This vulnerability was fixed by strict ASN.1 DER checking.</p> <p>Here is an assessment of this vulnerability:</p> <p>- If you are not use ECDSA signature validation, this vulnerability is not affected. - Not ASN.1 format signature like just concatenation of R and S value is not affected such as Bitcoin. - This vulnerability is affected to all ECC curve parameters. - Risk to accept a forged or crafted message to be signed is low. - Risk to raise memory corruption is low since jsrsasign uses BigInteger class. - ECDSA signatures semantically the same to valid one may be accepted as valid. There are many malleable variants.</p> <p>As discussed [here](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/24862/ber-or-der-x9-62-for-ecdsa-signature), there is no standards like X9.62 which requires ASN.1 DER. So ASN.1 BER can be applied to ECDSA however most of implementations like OpenSSL do strict ASN.1 DER checking.</p> <p>### Patches Users using ECDSA signature validation should upgrade to 8.0.19.</p> <p>### Workarounds Do str…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> npm: jsrsasign</p> <p>### Impact Jsrsasign supports ECDSA signature validation which signature value is represented by ASN.1 DER encoding. This vulnerablity may accept a wrong ASN.1 DER encoded ECDSA signature such as:</p> <p>- wrong multi-byte ASN.1 length of TLV (ex. 0x820045 even though 0x45 is correct) - prepending zeros with ASN.1 INTEGER value (ex. 0x00000123 even though 0x0123 is correct) - appending zeros to signature of ASN.1 TLV (ex. 0x3082....1fbc000000 even though 0x3082....1fbc, appending zeros are ignored.)</p> <p>This vulnerability was fixed by strict ASN.1 DER checking.</p> <p>Here is an assessment of this vulnerability:</p> <p>- If you are not use ECDSA signature validation, this vulnerability is not affected. - Not ASN.1 format signature like just concatenation of R and S value is not affected such as Bitcoin. - This vulnerability is affected to all ECC curve parameters. - Risk to accept a forged or crafted message to be signed is low. - Risk to raise memory corruption is low since jsrsasign uses BigInteger class. - ECDSA signatures semantically the same to valid one may be accepted as valid. There are many malleable variants.</p> <p>As discussed [here](https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/24862/ber-or-der-x9-62-for-ecdsa-signature), there is no standards like X9.62 which requires ASN.1 DER. So ASN.1 BER can be applied to ECDSA however most of implementations like OpenSSL do strict ASN.1 DER checking.</p> <p>### Patches Users using ECDSA signature validation should upgrade to 8.0.19.</p> <p>### Workarounds Do str…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-p8c3-7rj8-q963 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/gsd-2020-14966 gsd-2020-14966 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/gsd-2020-14966