Issue summary: Use of the low-level GF(2^m) elliptic curve APIs with untrusted
explicit values for the field polynomial can lead to out-of-bounds memory reads
or writes.
Impact summary: Out of bound memory writes can lead to an application crash or
even a possibility of a remote code execution, however, in all the protocols
involving Elliptic Curve Cryptography that we're aware of, either only "named
curves" are supported, or, if explicit curve parameters are supported, they
specify an X9.62 encoding of binary (GF(2^m)) curves that can't represent
problematic input values. Thus the likelihood of existence of a vulnerable
application is low.
In particular, the X9.62 encoding is used for ECC keys in X.509 certificates,
so problematic inputs cannot occur in the context of processing X.509
certificates. Any problematic use-cases would have to be using an "exotic"
curve encoding.
The affected APIs include: EC_GROUP_new_curve_GF2m(), EC_GROUP_new_from_params(),
and various supporting BN_GF2m_*() functions.
Applications working with "exotic" explicit binary (GF(2^m)) curve parameters,
that make it possible to represent invalid field polynomials with a zero
constant term, via the above or similar APIs, may terminate abruptly as a
result of reading or writing outside of array bounds. Remote code execution
cannot easily be ruled out.
The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 12% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it