VulnerabilityPublished 11 Feb 2024Updated 1 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-25714: rhonabwy · Comparison Logic is Vulnerable to Power Side-Channel Attacks

Affects rhonabwySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 1.1.14 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.1.14

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Feb 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Upgrade babelouest/rhonabwy to 1.1.14.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubbabelouest/rhonabwy`pkg:github/babelouest/rhonabwy`Other threats	Affected <1.1.14	Fixed in 1.1.14

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. 2. If a patch is not yet available, consider applying temporary mitigations such as adding artificial delays to signature verification to obscure timing differences, though this is less secure. 3. Conduct code audits of any custom cryptographic verification routines to ensure constant-time operations are used for all sensitive comparisons. 4. Monitor network traffic and logs for anomalous timing-based probing attempts targeting HMAC verification endpoints. 5. Employ network-level protections such as rate limiting and anomaly detection to reduce the feasibility of timing attacks. 6. Educate developers and security teams about side-channel risks and enforce cryptographic best practices in development. 7. Review and strengthen overall cryptographic key management to limit exposure if keys are compromised. 8. Consider deploying application-layer mitigations like HMAC key rotation and multi-factor authentication to reduce impact of potential signature forgery.

Description

In Rhonabwy through 1.1.13, HMAC signature verification uses a strcmp function that is vulnerable to side-channel attacks, because it stops the comparison when the first difference is spotted in the two signatures. (The fix uses gnutls_memcmp, which has constant-time execution.)

Impact

The vulnerability allows remote attackers to perform timing side-channel attacks against HMAC signature verification, potentially recovering secret keys or forging valid signatures. This undermines the confidentiality and integrity of communications or data protected by Rhonabwy's HMAC implementation. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized data access, message tampering, or bypassing authentication mechanisms relying on HMAC. Since no authentication or user interaction is required, the attack surface is broad, increasing risk for exposed services using vulnerable versions. Although availability is not impacted, the breach of confidentiality and integrity can have severe consequences, including data leaks, fraud, and loss of trust. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure that rely on Rhonabwy or its cryptographic components are particularly at risk. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests a window of opportunity for proactive mitigation before active attacks emerge.

CWE-1255Comparison Logic is Vulnerable to Power Side-Channel Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
A device's real time power consumption may be monitored during security token evaluation and the information gleaned may be used to determine the value of the reference token.
Architecture and Design
The design phase must consider each check of a security token against a standard and the amount of power consumed during the check of a good token versus a bad token. The alternative is an all at once check where a retry counter is incremented PRIOR to the check.
Architecture and Design
Another potential mitigation is to parallelize shifting of secret data (see example 2 below). Note that the wider the bus the more effective the result.
Architecture and Design
An additional potential mitigation is to add random data to each crypto operation then subtract it out afterwards. This is highly effective but costly in performance, area, and power consumption. It also requires a random number generator.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Black Box Reverse Engineering (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/babelouest/rhonabwy/commit/f9fd9a1c77e48b514ebb3baf0360f87eef3d846e (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 10:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1255

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats