FKIE_CVE-2025-65083

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-11-17 16:15 - Updated: 2025-11-18 14:06
Severity ?
3.2 (Low) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
Summary
GoSign Desktop through 2.4.1 disables TLS certificate validation when configured to use a proxy server. This can be problematic if the GoSign Desktop user selects an arbitrary proxy server without consideration of whether outbound HTTPS connections from the proxy server to Internet servers succeed even for untrusted or invalid server certificates. In this scenario (which is outside of the product's design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed. In typical cases of a proxy server for outbound HTTPS traffic from an enterprise, those connections would not succeed. (Admittedly, the usual expectation is that a client application is configured to trust an enterprise CA and does not set SSL_VERIFY_NONE.) Also, it is of course unsafe to place ~/.gosign in the home directory of an untrusted user and then have other users execute downloaded files.
References
cve@mitre.orghttps://securityaffairs.com/184672/hacking/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-gosign-desktop-lead-to-remote-code-execution.html
cve@mitre.orghttps://www.firma.infocert.it/prodotti/gosign
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "cveTags": [
    {
      "sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
      "tags": [
        "disputed"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "GoSign Desktop through 2.4.1 disables TLS certificate validation when configured to use a proxy server. This can be problematic if the GoSign Desktop user selects an arbitrary proxy server without consideration of whether outbound HTTPS connections from the proxy server to Internet servers succeed even for untrusted or invalid server certificates. In this scenario (which is outside of the product\u0027s design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed. In typical cases of a proxy server for outbound HTTPS traffic from an enterprise, those connections would not succeed. (Admittedly, the usual expectation is that a client application is configured to trust an enterprise CA and does not set SSL_VERIFY_NONE.) Also, it is of course unsafe to place ~/.gosign in the home directory of an untrusted user and then have other users execute downloaded files."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2025-65083",
  "lastModified": "2025-11-18T14:06:29.817",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
          "attackVector": "LOCAL",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 3.2,
          "baseSeverity": "LOW",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "CHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 1.4,
        "impactScore": 1.4,
        "source": "cve@mitre.org",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2025-11-17T16:15:51.007",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "cve@mitre.org",
      "url": "https://securityaffairs.com/184672/hacking/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-gosign-desktop-lead-to-remote-code-execution.html"
    },
    {
      "source": "cve@mitre.org",
      "url": "https://www.firma.infocert.it/prodotti/gosign"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "cve@mitre.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-295"
        }
      ],
      "source": "cve@mitre.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.