CVE-2024-1545VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2024Updated 27 Jan 2026

CVE-2024-1545: WolfSSL wolfCrypt · Improper Restriction of Software Interfaces to Hardware Features

Affects WolfSSL wolfCryptSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Aug 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
WolfSSL wolfCrypt	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-1545, European organizations should implement several targeted measures beyond generic advice: 1) Enforce strict workload isolation in multi-tenant environments to prevent co-residency of untrusted processes with sensitive cryptographic workloads, using hardware virtualization extensions and container security best practices. 2) Deploy hardware-level protections against Rowhammer attacks, such as ECC memory, targeted refresh techniques, or memory access pattern monitoring, especially in data centers and cloud infrastructure. 3) Monitor system logs and performance counters for anomalous memory access patterns indicative of fault injection attempts. 4) Apply runtime integrity checks and fault detection mechanisms within cryptographic libraries or at the application layer to detect corrupted key material or abnormal cryptographic results. 5) Engage with wolfSSL for updates or patches and plan for timely application once available. 6) Conduct security assessments and penetration testing simulating fault injection scenarios to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigations. 7) Limit user interaction requirements by restricting access to systems running wolfCrypt and enforcing strong authentication and authorization controls. 8) Consider alternative cryptographic libraries with hardened fault injection resistance if wolfCrypt usage is not mandatory. These steps collectively reduce the attack surface and improve resilience against this sophisticated hardware-level threat.

Description

Fault Injection vulnerability in RsaPrivateDecryption function in wolfssl/wolfcrypt/src/rsa.c in WolfSSL wolfssl5.6.6 on Linux/Windows allows remote attacker co-resides in the same system with a victim process to disclose information and escalate privileges via Rowhammer fault injection to the RsaKey structure.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-1545 can be substantial, especially for those relying on wolfCrypt for cryptographic operations in multi-tenant or shared hardware environments. Confidentiality is at risk due to potential leakage of RSA private key material, which could compromise encrypted communications, digital signatures, and authentication mechanisms. Integrity may be partially affected if fault injection leads to corrupted cryptographic computations, potentially enabling privilege escalation or unauthorized access. Availability impact is low but possible if fault injection causes process crashes or denial of service. Organizations operating cloud services, virtualized environments, or embedded systems using wolfCrypt are particularly vulnerable. The risk is heightened in sectors handling sensitive data such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the presence of Rowhammer-capable hardware in data centers and the increasing sophistication of attackers make this a credible threat. Failure to address this vulnerability could lead to data breaches, regulatory non-compliance under GDPR, and reputational damage.

CWE-1256Improper Restriction of Software Interfaces to Hardware Features (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides software-controllable device functionality for capabilities such as power and clock management, but it does not properly limit functionality that can lead to modification of hardware memory or register bits, or the ability to observe physical side channels.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Ensure proper access control mechanisms protect software-controllable features altering physical operating conditions such as clock frequency and voltage.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Mobile Device Fault Injection (opens in a new tab)
Hardware Fault Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-252Unchecked Return Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Implementation
Ensure that you account for all possible return values from the function.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jan 2026, 22:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1256, CWE-252

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats