<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 23:05:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-33753 — Improper Certificate Validation in rfc3161-client</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-33753</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; trailofbits rfc3161-client&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to 1.0.6, an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client&amp;#39;s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target common_name and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.6.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; trailofbits rfc3161-client&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to 1.0.6, an Authorization Bypass vulnerability in rfc3161-client&amp;#39;s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target common_name and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.6.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-33753</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj — rfc3161-client Has Improper Certificate Validation</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; PyPI: rfc3161-client&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Summary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`&amp;#39;s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target `common_name` and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The root cause lies in `rfc3161_client.verify.Verifier._verify_leaf_certs()`. The library attempts to locate the leaf certificate within the parsed TimeStampResponse PKCS#7 `SignedData` bag using a naive algorithm:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```python
leaf_certificate_found = None
for cert in certs:
    if not [c for c in certs if c.issuer == cert.subject]:
        leaf_certificate_found = cert
        break
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This loop erroneously assumes that the valid leaf certificate is simply the first certificate in the bag that does not issue any other certificate. It does **not** rely on checking the `ESSCertID` or `ESSCertIDv2` cryptographic bindings specified in RFC 3161 (which binds the signature securely to the exact signer certificate).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An attacker can exploit this by:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Acquiring a legitimate, authentic TimeStampResponse fro…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; PyPI: rfc3161-client&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Summary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`&amp;#39;s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target `common_name` and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The root cause lies in `rfc3161_client.verify.Verifier._verify_leaf_certs()`. The library attempts to locate the leaf certificate within the parsed TimeStampResponse PKCS#7 `SignedData` bag using a naive algorithm:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```python
leaf_certificate_found = None
for cert in certs:
    if not [c for c in certs if c.issuer == cert.subject]:
        leaf_certificate_found = cert
        break
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This loop erroneously assumes that the valid leaf certificate is simply the first certificate in the bag that does not issue any other certificate. It does **not** rely on checking the `ESSCertID` or `ESSCertIDv2` cryptographic bindings specified in RFC 3161 (which binds the signature securely to the exact signer certificate).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An attacker can exploit this by:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Acquiring a legitimate, authentic TimeStampResponse fro…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/ghsa-3xxc-pwj6-jgrj</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PYSEC-2026-3051 — rfc3161-client Has Improper Certificate Validation</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/pysec-2026-3051</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; PyPI: rfc3161-client&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Summary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`&amp;#39;s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target `common_name` and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The root cause lies in `rfc3161_client.verify.Verifier._verify_leaf_certs()`. The library attempts to locate the leaf certificate within the parsed TimeStampResponse PKCS#7 `SignedData` bag using a naive algorithm:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```python
leaf_certificate_found = None
for cert in certs:
    if not [c for c in certs if c.issuer == cert.subject]:
        leaf_certificate_found = cert
        break
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This loop erroneously assumes that the valid leaf certificate is simply the first certificate in the bag that does not issue any other certificate. It does **not** rely on checking the `ESSCertID` or `ESSCertIDv2` cryptographic bindings specified in RFC 3161 (which binds the signature securely to the exact signer certificate).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An attacker can exploit this by:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Acquiring a legitimate, authentic TimeStampResponse fro…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; PyPI: rfc3161-client&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Summary&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An Authorization Bypass vulnerability in `rfc3161-client`&amp;#39;s signature verification allows any attacker to impersonate a trusted TimeStamping Authority (TSA). By exploiting a logic flaw in how the library extracts the leaf certificate from an unordered PKCS#7 bag of certificates, an attacker can append a spoofed certificate matching the target `common_name` and Extended Key Usage (EKU) requirements. This tricks the library into verifying these authorization rules against the forged certificate while validating the cryptographic signature against an actual trusted TSA (such as FreeTSA), thereby bypassing the intended TSA authorization pinning entirely.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;### Details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The root cause lies in `rfc3161_client.verify.Verifier._verify_leaf_certs()`. The library attempts to locate the leaf certificate within the parsed TimeStampResponse PKCS#7 `SignedData` bag using a naive algorithm:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;```python
leaf_certificate_found = None
for cert in certs:
    if not [c for c in certs if c.issuer == cert.subject]:
        leaf_certificate_found = cert
        break
```&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This loop erroneously assumes that the valid leaf certificate is simply the first certificate in the bag that does not issue any other certificate. It does **not** rely on checking the `ESSCertID` or `ESSCertIDv2` cryptographic bindings specified in RFC 3161 (which binds the signature securely to the exact signer certificate).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An attacker can exploit this by:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1. Acquiring a legitimate, authentic TimeStampResponse fro…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/pysec-2026-3051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
