PULSE
FEED
← All CVEs
CVE WatchOct 8, 2026

CVE-2025-46774

An Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability [CWE-347] in FortiClient MacOS installer version 7.4.2 and below, version

CVSS

7.5

High

EPSS

0.1%

p0

KEV

—

Exploit Today

0

0-100

Published: Oct 14, 2025 · Last modified: Oct 8, 2026 · CWE-347

EPSS · 30d
0.1%EPSS · 30 days0.1%
2026-10-022026-10-30
Technical description

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.

Official references
Related CVEs
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2026-631828.1 HIG
—
——0LightSAML implements SAML 2.0 data model classes, XML serialization and deserialization, XML security, certificate support, and message bindings. Prior to 4.7.1 and 5.0.1, LightSAML and xmlseclibs disagree about which assertion an inbound SAML signature covers. `Response::deserialize` uses `manyElementsFromXml` to collect only direct-child `saml:Assertion` elements of `samlp:Response`, and `AssertionSignatureValidatorAction` validates their `ds:Signature` using an out-of-band trusted IdP credential resolved by Issuer, not a key from the document. `XMLSecurityDSig::validateReference()` removes the enveloped signature from the shared DOM, but `processRefNode()` resolves `Reference URI="#id"` document-wide through an XPath of the form `//*[@Id]` and takes `item(0)`, which need not be the assertion whose claims LightSAML consumes. An attacker who has captured one genuinely signed assertion, such as an earlier login response, can place its signature-stripped bytes earlier in `samlp:Extensions` and present a forged direct-child assertion with the same ID and copied genuine signature. Validation then covers the hidden genuine bytes while LightSAML surfaces unsigned attacker-controlled `Subject/NameID`, `Conditions`, and `Attributes`, enabling authentication bypass or privilege escalation even when signature validation is required. The behavior was confirmed in versions 5.0.0 and 4.6.1. This issue is fixed in versions 4.7.1 and 5.0.1.19h
CVE-2026-465607.5 HIG
—
——0Open Access Management (OpenAM) is an access management solution. Prior to 16.1.1, the `RADIUS` authentication module opens an unconnected datagram socket and trusts the first UDP datagram received on the client source port. The receive path does not verify the source IP and port, match the response identifier to the outstanding request, or verify the RFC 2865 `Response Authenticator`; the RFC 2869 `Message-Authenticator` is neither sent nor required. Any non-Reject/non-Challenge packet is treated as success. On a deployment with a `RADIUS` module instance enabled on a login chain, an unauthenticated network attacker can race the real server on-path or spray forged `Access-Accept` packets off-path and obtain a session for any `RADIUS`-mapped username without knowing the shared secret. Unlike CVE-2024-3596, exploitation requires no MD5 chosen-prefix forgery because no response authenticator is checked. The resulting session carries the impersonated principal's privileges. This issue is fixed in version 16.1.1.22h
CVE-2026-119037—
—
——0Business::GoCardless versions before 1.01 for Perl accept forged webhooks when a configured webhook secret is undef or empty. signature_valid uses each configured secret as the HMAC key, and nothing rejects undef or an empty string, both of which Digest::SHA treats as an empty key. A secret read from an unset environment variable, or an empty entry in a list of rotated secrets, is used as is. A remote attacker can sign a forged webhook with an empty key and have it accepted as sent by GoCardless.1d
CVE-2026-1195616.8 MED
—
——0phpMyAdmin through 5.2.3 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in CustomServer::parseAndValidateAssertionResponse() that never verifies WebAuthn assertion signatures against stored public keys. Attackers holding a victim's MySQL credentials can POST a crafted webauthn_request_response with matching challenge, origin, and rpIdHash to bypass the second factor and gain database privileges.22h
CVE-2026-118559—
0.7%
——0Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability in Drupal Commerce Stripe allows Signature Spoof. This issue affects Commerce Stripe versions: from 0.0.0 to 1.4, from 2.0.0 to 2.2.3.22h
CVE-2026-1187743.7 LOW
1.1%
——0Forge (also called node-forge) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. Prior to 1.4.1, the affected implementation used certificate.verify(child), _verifySignature(), lib/x509.js to process the relevant input or security decision. node-forge selected RSA padding and RSASSA-PSS parameters from the issuer certificate rather than the child certificate being verified. A child labeled as RSASSA-PSS could therefore be accepted with a PKCS#1 v1.5 signature when the issuer used PKCS#1 v1.5. The signature still had to be produced with the trusted issuer's private key, so this did not permit certificate identity forgery, but it could bypass policies that require a declared signature scheme. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.1d