VulnerabilityPublished 2 Aug 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-42460: elliptic · Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency

Affects ellipticSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmelliptic`pkg:npm/elliptic`Other threats	Affected =6.5.6	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Monitor the Elliptic package repository and Node.js security advisories for official patches addressing CVE-2024-42460 and apply updates promptly once available.
Until a patch is released, implement manual validation of ECDSA signatures by checking that the leading bits of r and s are not zero, ensuring signature uniqueness and preventing malleability.
Review and audit all cryptographic operations in your Node.js applications that utilize the Elliptic package to identify exposure.
Where feasible, consider migrating to alternative cryptographic libraries with robust signature validation and active maintenance.
Employ cryptographic best practices such as using deterministic ECDSA signatures (RFC 6979) to reduce malleability risks.
Enhance monitoring and logging around signature verification failures or anomalies to detect potential exploitation attempts.
Educate development teams about the risks of signature malleability and the importance of strict signature validation.

Description

In the Elliptic package 6.5.6 for Node.js, ECDSA signature malleability occurs because there is a missing check for whether the leading bit of r and s is zero.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-42460 lies in the potential undermining of cryptographic signature integrity. Applications relying on the Elliptic package for ECDSA signatures—common in blockchain platforms, digital identity verification, and secure communications—may be vulnerable to signature malleability attacks. This can lead to transaction replay, unauthorized signature substitution, or bypassing of signature-based authentication mechanisms. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise can erode trust in digital signatures, potentially causing financial losses, regulatory compliance issues, and reputational damage. Organizations in fintech, government digital services, and critical infrastructure sectors are particularly at risk. The medium severity score reflects the moderate but non-trivial risk, especially in environments where signature uniqueness is critical for security and auditability.

CWE-130Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
Implementation
When processing structured incoming data containing a size field followed by raw data, ensure that you identify and resolve any inconsistencies between the size field and the actual size of the data.
Implementation
Do not let the user control the size of the buffer.
Implementation
Validate that the length of the user-supplied data is consistent with the buffer size.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (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 3 Nov 2025, 22:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-130

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats