
Loading

Loading
We use strictly necessary cookies to run this site, and analytics cookies to understand how it's used. See our Privacy Policy for details.
A GitHub-reviewed security advisory, not necessarily under active exploitation the way our CISA KEV advisories are, but a real, disclosed vulnerability in an open-source dependency.
Affected packages
Vulnerable: <= 1.4.0
Patched in 1.4.1
Details
When verifying a certificate, node-forge chose the RSA padding scheme (PKCS#1 v1.5 or RSASSA-PSS) and PSS parameters from the issuer certificate's own signature algorithm instead of the certificate being verified. A certificate labeled as signed with RSASSA-PSS could pass verifyCertificateChain() with a PKCS#1 v1.5 signature. Fixed in node-forge 1.4.1.
certificate.verify(child) in lib/x509.js hashes the child's TBSCertificate with the digest of the child's signature algorithm, then calls _verifySignature() with the issuer certificate. _verifySignature() selected the padding scheme from that certificate's signatureOid and signatureParameters, so the child was verified with the issuer's own scheme rather than the one the child declares.
As a result, a child certificate whose signature algorithm says RSASSA-PSS was accepted with a PKCS#1 v1.5 signature when the issuer itself was signed with PKCS#1 v1.5. The outer signatureAlgorithm field of a certificate is not covered by the signature, so an existing PKCS#1 v1.5 (SHA-256) certificate can be relabeled as RSASSA-PSS and still pass verification. The signature itself must still be made with the issuer's private key over the certificate's contents; no certificate can be forged.
The same cause made correctly signed chains fail: a PKCS#1 v1.5 certificate issued by an RSASSA-PSS-signed certificate, or the reverse, was rejected.
The fix verifies with the child certificate's signature scheme and parameters and the issuer's public key.
Fixed in node-forge 1.4.1. Certificate signatures are verified with the scheme of the certificate's own signature algorithm.
Applications that make decisions based on a certificate's signature algorithm can verify the signature themselves with that algorithm's scheme and the issuer's public key.
CVSS 3.1: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N (3.7, Low) CVSS 4.0 (informational): CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N (6.3) CVSS 4.0 rates this Moderate because its integrity weighting is higher; the severity rating follows CVSS 3.1.
Reported by Brian Lee (@hibrian827, Georgia Tech SSLab, Team Atlanta), who also suggested the fix.
Create a CA certificate signed with sha256WithRSAEncryption, and a leaf certificate whose signature algorithm fields (outer and in the TBSCertificate) are RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256/MGF1-SHA-256/salt 32, but sign the leaf's TBSCertificate with the CA key using PKCS#1 v1.5 (caKey.sign(sha256)).
On 1.4.0, forge.pki.verifyCertificateChain(forge.pki.createCaStore([ca]), [leaf]) returns true, although verifying the leaf's signature with RSASSA-PSS fails. On 1.4.1 it throws "Certificate signature is invalid.".
No private key is needed for the same result: take any certificate signed by the CA with sha256WithRSAEncryption and replace only its outer signatureAlgorithm (outside the signed TBSCertificate) with the RSASSA-PSS identifier above. On 1.4.0 it still verifies and reports signatureOid as RSASSA-PSS; on 1.4.1 it is rejected.
Regression tests are in tests/unit/x509.js ("signature scheme of the child certificate").
Applications that rely on a certificate's declared signature algorithm, for example a policy that only accepts RSASSA-PSS-signed certificates, can be given a certificate labeled RSASSA-PSS whose signature was verified as PKCS#1 v1.5. The certificate must still have been signed by the trusted issuer's key, so the identity it certifies cannot be forged. There is no confidentiality or availability impact.
EPSS, exploit probability
Low0.10%
estimated chance of real-world exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 1.0% of every CVE FIRST.org scores
Refreshed 11/10/2026, via FIRST.org's EPSS model, not CVSS, this measures likelihood of exploitation, not how severe it would be.
More npm advisories
Talk to us about this
Find out whether this dependency (or others like it) is actually reachable in your codebase.
Get help patching, or building dependency-scanning into your pipeline going forward.
A secure code review or supply chain review finds this before an advisory does.