CVE-2026-68745
Certificate validation failures in SAML authentication in Apache CloudStack 4.20.3.0 and 4.22.1.0 on all platforms allow a malicious agent t
CVSS
8.1
High
EPSS
0.1%
p0
KEV
—
Exploit Today
0
0-100
Published: Aug 21, 2026 · Last modified: Aug 24, 2026 · CWE-347
0.1%EPSS · 30 days0.1%
2026-08-212026-08-24
Certificate validation failures in SAML authentication in Apache CloudStack 4.20.3.0 and 4.22.1.0 on all platforms allow a malicious agent to forge a SAML response to the management server. The agent will have to spoof the ip address of the IdP or get an url of its own choosing registered in the management server, after which it can allow logging on with forged signatures. Users are recommended to upgrade to versions 4.20.3.1 or 4.22.1.1 and above, which fix this issue.
CVECVSSEPSSKEVRExploitTitleMod.
CVE-2026-75946—0.1%
——0A potential security vulnerability has been identified in the OMEN Gaming Hub for versions prior to 1101.2608.0.0. The vulnerability could potentially allow a local attacker to escalate privileges due to insufficient access controls.4dCVE-2026-628349.3 CRI19.4%
——6Improper verification of cryptographic signature in Azure Data Factory allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.1dCVE-2026-728615.8 MED9.7%
——3The github-issue-bot templates in appwrite/templates verify the GitHub webhook signature with an inverted condition. verifyWebhook in node/github-issue-bot/src/github.js and in node-typescript/github-issue-bot/src/github.ts returns "typeof signature !== 'string' || (await verify(...))", so when the X-Hub-Signature-256 header is absent the first operand is true, the logical OR short-circuits, and the function reports success without performing any HMAC verification. main.js rejects a request only when verifyWebhook returns false, so an unauthenticated request carrying no signature passes the check. Processing then continues to postComment, which takes the repository and issue objects directly from the request body, letting the caller direct the deployed function to post a comment on a repository and issue of their choosing using the configured GITHUB_TOKEN, with the issue author login from the body interpolated into the comment text.4dCVE-2026-762347.5 HIG12.8%
——4libcrux-ecdh and libcrux-ed25519 before 0.0.6, and libcrux-psq before 0.0.7, contain cryptographic implementation bugs. libcrux-ecdh did not properly check length and clamping during X25519 secret validation (and had a broken clamping check for imported X25519 secret keys); libcrux-ed25519 performed a duplicated clamping step during key generation; and libcrux-psq panicked instead of propagating an AEADError. These were fixed in the respective patched releases.5dCVE-2026-507206.4 MED4.4%
——1The Ingenic T31 SoC boot ROM flash-boot verification path compares only a single 32-bit word of the RSA signature output against a single 32-bit word of the SHA-256 payload digest, rather than compare the full data. This allows an attacker with physical write access to boot media to forge modified SPL (Secondary Program Loader) images that pass secure boot verification without possession of the OEM signing key. Each forgery attempt succeeds with approximately 2/3 probability. This has been validated via reverse engineering, software emulation against vendor-signed images, and end-to-end hardware acceptance of a forged firmware image on a Wyze Video Doorbell v2 (T31X).1dCVE-2026-507196.8 MED4.4%
——1The Ingenic T41, and probably also T32, T40, and A1 SoC boot ROMs parse and execute an attacker-controlled init table from the SPL header before checking the secure boot state and before invoking signature verification. The init table parser supports full-address 32-bit write operations, allowing modification of SRAM-resident secure boot state prior to the verification decision. An attacker with physical write access to boot media can inject an init-table entry that disables the secure boot check, causing the ROM to accept unsigned or modified first-stage boot code. This has been hardware-validated on a secureboot-enabled T41 device; ROM analysis confirms closely related behavior on T32, T40, and A1.1d