VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jan 2025Updated 14 Jan 2025

CVE-2024-29970: Fortanix Enclave OS 3.36.1941-EM has an interface vulnerability that leads to state corruption via

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Jan 2025
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 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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately inventory their use of Fortanix Enclave OS to identify affected versions, specifically 3.36.1941-EM. Until a vendor patch is released, consider implementing network-level protections such as strict firewall rules to limit access to enclave management interfaces and isolate vulnerable systems. Employ runtime monitoring and anomaly detection focused on unusual signal injection patterns or unexpected enclave state changes. Engage with Fortanix support to obtain any available workarounds or early patches. Plan for rapid deployment of official patches once released. Additionally, review enclave configuration to minimize exposed interfaces and apply the principle of least privilege to all enclave-related processes. Conduct thorough incident response preparedness to quickly detect and respond to any exploitation attempts. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and recovery plans to mitigate potential denial-of-service impacts.

Description

Fortanix Enclave OS 3.36.1941-EM has an interface vulnerability that leads to state corruption via injected signals.

Impact

The vulnerability poses a severe risk to organizations using Fortanix Enclave OS, especially those relying on secure enclaves for protecting cryptographic keys, sensitive data, or critical application logic. Successful exploitation could lead to full compromise of enclave confidentiality and integrity, allowing attackers to extract secrets or manipulate protected computations. The availability of the enclave OS could also be disrupted, causing denial of service. This could have cascading effects on cloud service providers, financial institutions, healthcare organizations, and government agencies that depend on hardware-based security for compliance and data protection. The lack of required privileges or user interaction lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the likelihood of exploitation once an exploit becomes available. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the critical severity demands urgent attention.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…