When curl is told to use the Certificate Status Request TLS extension, often referred to as OCSP stapling, to verify that the server certificate is valid, it might fail to detect some OCSP problems and instead wrongly consider the response as fine. If the returned status reports another error than 'revoked' (like for example 'unauthorized') it is not treated as a bad certficate.

An incorrectly implemented authentication scheme that is subjected to a spoofing attack in the management console of Ivanti Workspace Control version 10.18.0.0 and below allows a local authenticated attacker to escalate their privileges.

AAn improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiClientWindows 7.2.0 through 7.2.2, 7.0.0 through 7.0.11, FortiClientLinux 7.2.0, 7.0.0 through 7.0.11 and FortiClientMac 7.0.0 through 7.0.11, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4 may allow a remote and unauthenticated attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack on the communication channel between the FortiGate and the FortiClient during the ZTNA tunnel creation

An improper certificate validation vulnerability [CWE-295] in FortiClientWindows 6.4 all versions, 7.0.0 through 7.0.7, FortiClientMac 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiClientLinux 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 through 7.2.4, FortiClientAndroid 6.4 all versions, 7.0 all versions, 7.2.0 and FortiClientiOS 5.6 all versions, 6.0.0 through 6.0.1, 7.0.0 through 7.0.6 SAML SSO feature may allow an unauthenticated attacker to man-in-the-middle the communication between the FortiClient and  both the service provider and the identity provider.

An improper certificate validation vulnerability in TLS certificate validation allows an attacker on the same network to intercept sensitive credentials during restore operations.

An improper certificate validation vulnerability has been reported to affect QuMagie. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow local network users to compromise the security of the system via unspecified vectors. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: QuMagie 2.3.1 and later

An issue was discovered in Mbed TLS 3.x before 3.6.1. With TLS 1.3, when a server enables optional authentication of the client, if the client-provided certificate does not have appropriate values in if keyUsage or extKeyUsage extensions, then the return value of mbedtls_ssl_get_verify_result() would incorrectly have the MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_KEY_USAGE and MBEDTLS_X509_BADCERT_KEY_USAGE bits clear. As a result, an attacker that had a certificate valid for uses other than TLS client authentication would nonetheless be able to use it for TLS client authentication. Only TLS 1.3 servers were affected, and only with optional authentication (with required authentication, the handshake would be aborted with a fatal alert).

Host name validation for TLS certificates is bypassed when the installed OpenEdge default certificates are used to perform the TLS handshake for a networked connection.  This has been corrected so that default certificates are no longer capable of overriding host name validation and will need to be replaced where full TLS certificate validation is needed for network security.  The existing certificates should be replaced with CA-signed certificates from a recognized certificate authority that contain the necessary information to support host name validation.

If a site had been granted the permission to open popup windows, it could cause Select elements to appear on top of another site to perform a spoofing attack. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 130, Firefox ESR < 128.2, and Thunderbird < 128.2.

A flaw was found in Kroxylicious. When establishing the connection with the upstream Kafka server using a TLS secured connection, Kroxylicious fails to properly verify the server's hostname, resulting in an insecure connection. For a successful attack to be performed, the attacker needs to perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack or compromise any external systems, such as DNS or network routing configuration. This issue is considered a high complexity attack, with additional high privileges required, as the attack would need access to the Kroxylicious configuration or a peer system. The result of a successful attack impacts both data integrity and confidentiality.