CAPEC-145DetailedDraft
Checksum Spoofing
An adversary spoofs a checksum message for the purpose of making a payload appear to have a valid corresponding checksum. Checksums are used to verify message integrity. They consist of some value based on the value of the message they are protecting. Hash codes are a common checksum mechanism. Both the sender and recipient are able to compute the checksum based on the contents of the message. If the message contents change between the sender and recipient, the sender and recipient will compute different checksum values. Since the sender's checksum value is transmitted with the message, the recipient would know that a modification occurred. In checksum spoofing an adversary modifies the message body and then modifies the corresponding checksum so that the recipient's checksum calculation will match the checksum (created by the adversary) in the message. This would prevent the recipient from realizing that a change occurred.
Open in catalog with CAPEC filter →Related vulnerabilities
CVE-2024-25678In LiteSpeed QUIC (LSQUIC) Library before 4.0.4, DCID validation is mishandled.
CVE-2023-33668DigiExam up to v14.0.2 lacks integrity checks for native modules, allowing attackers to access PII and takeover accounts on shared computers.
CVE-2023-28386Snap One OvrC Pro devices versions 7.2 and prior do not validate firmware updates correctly. The device only calculates the MD5 hash of the firmware and does not check using a private-public key mechanism. The lack of complete PKI system firmware signature could allow attackers to upload arbitrary firmware updates, resulting in code execution.
CVE-2025-11543Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value vulnerability in Sharp Display Solutions projectors allows a attacker may create and run unauthorized firmware.
CVE-2026-32105xrdp is an open source RDP server. In versions through 0.10.5, xrdp does not implement verification for the Message Authentication Code (MAC) signature of encrypted RDP packets when using the "Classic RDP Security" layer. While the sender correctly generates signatures, the receiving logic lacks the necessary implementation to validate the 8-byte integrity signature, causing it to be silently ignored. An unauthenticated attacker with man-in-the-middle (MITM) capabilities can exploit this missing check to modify encrypted traffic in transit without detection. It does not affect connections where the TLS security layer is enforced. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.6. If users are unable to immediately upgrade, they should configure xrdp.ini to enforce TLS security (security_layer=tls) to ensure end-to-end integrity.
CVE-2026-34182Issue Summary: Cryptographic Message Services (CMS) processing fails to perform
sufficient input validation on the cipher and tag length fields of
AuthEnvelopedData containers, leading to various potential compromises.
Impact Summary: Attackers making use of these vulnerabilities may achieve
key-equivalent functionality for a given CMS recipient and/or bypass integrity
validation for a given message.
In one use case, an attacker may send a CMS message containing
AuthEnvelopedData with the cipher specified as a non-AEAD cipher. OpenSSL
erroneously allows this selection, and attempts to decrypt and validate the
message.
An on-path attacker who captures one legitimate AES-GCM AuthEnvelopedData
addressed to the victim can re-emit it with the recipientInfos set left
byte-for-byte intact, so the victim's private key still unwraps the genuine CEK
(the content-encryption key), but with the inner OID rewritten to AES-256-OFB
(Output Feedback Mode, an unauthenticated keystream mode) and with an
attacker-chosen IV and ciphertext. The victim initializes AES-256-OFB under the
real CEK, never consults the MAC field, and CMS_decrypt() returns success.
If the application under attack responds to the attacker with any indicator
showing success or failure of the decryption effort, it is possible for the
attacker to use this as an oracle to obtain key equivalent functionality for the
CEK used for the chosen recipient of the message.
In another use case, an attacker can reduce the tag length of the chosen AEAD
cipher for a given AuthEnvelopedData container to be a single byte long,
allowing an attacker to brute force CMS decryption, producing an integrity
bypass for applications that trust CMS_decrypt() to reject modified content.
The FIPS modules are not affected by this issue.
CVE-2025-54887jwe is a Ruby implementation of the RFC 7516 JSON Web Encryption (JWE) standard. In versions 1.1.0 and below, authentication tags of encrypted JWEs can be brute forced, which may result in loss of confidentiality for those JWEs and provide ways to craft arbitrary JWEs. This puts users at risk because JWEs can be modified to decrypt to an arbitrary value, decrypted by observing parsing differences and the GCM internal GHASH key can be recovered. Users are affected by this vulnerability even if they do not use an AES-GCM encryption algorithm for their JWEs. As the GHASH key may have been leaked, users must rotate the encryption keys after upgrading. This issue is fixed in version 1.1.1.
CVE-2022-29898On various RAD-ISM-900-EN-* devices by PHOENIX CONTACT an admin user could use the configuration file uploader in the WebUI to execute arbitrary code with root privileges on the OS due to an improper validation of an integrity check value in all versions of the firmware.
CVE-2024-3596RADIUS Protocol under RFC 2865 is susceptible to forgery attacks by a local attacker who can modify any valid Response (Access-Accept, Access-Reject, or Access-Challenge) to any other response using a chosen-prefix collision attack against MD5 Response Authenticator signature.
CVE-2026-32148Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity vulnerability in hexpm hex (Hex.RemoteConverger module) allows dependency integrity bypass via unverified lockfile checksums.
Hex stores checksums for dependencies in the mix.lock file to ensure reproducible and integrity-checked builds. However, Hex.RemoteConverger.verify_resolved/2 never executes checksum verification because the lock data returned by Hex.Utils.lock/1 uses string-based dependency names, while the verification logic compares against atom-based names. This type mismatch causes the verification code path to be silently skipped. Checksums are still validated when packages are initially downloaded from the registry, but mismatches between the lockfile and resolved dependencies are not detected.
An attacker who can influence cached packages (e.g., via local cache poisoning or a compromised registry) can provide modified dependency contents that will be accepted without detection. The mix.lock file is silently rewritten with the checksum values from the registry, erasing evidence of tampering.
This issue affects hex: from 0.16.0 before 2.4.2.
CVE-2023-4929All firmware versions of the NPort 5000 Series are affected by an improper validation of integrity check vulnerability. This vulnerability results from insufficient checks on firmware updates or upgrades, potentially allowing malicious users to manipulate the firmware and gain control of devices.
CVE-2020-25758An issue was discovered on D-Link DSR-250 3.17 devices. Insufficient validation of configuration file checksums could allow a remote, authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary crontab entries into saved configurations before uploading. These entries are executed as root.
CVE-2020-14120Some Xiaomi models have a vulnerability in a certain application. The vulnerability is caused by the lack of checksum when using a three-party application to pass in parameters, and attackers can induce users to install a malicious app and use the vulnerability to achieve elevated privileges, making the normal services of the system affected.
CVE-2017-4961An issue was discovered in Cloud Foundry Foundation BOSH Release 261.x versions prior to 261.3 and all 260.x versions. In certain cases an authenticated Director user can provide a malicious checksum that could allow them to escalate their privileges on the Director VM, aka "BOSH Director Shell Injection Vulnerabilities."
CVE-2026-26928SzafirHost downloads necessary files in the context of the initiating web page. When called, SzafirHost updates its dynamic library. JAR files are correctly verified based on a list of trusted file hashes, and if a file was not on that list, it was checked to see if it had been digitally signed by the vendor. The application doesn't verify hash or vendor's digital signature of uploaded DLL, SO, JNILIB or DYLIB file. The attacker can provide malicious file which will be saved in users /temp folder and executed by the application.
This issue was fixed in version 1.1.0.