VulnerabilityPublished 2 Aug 2024Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-42461: elliptic · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects ellipticSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% 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

To mitigate CVE-2024-42461, European organizations should: 1) Monitor the Elliptic package repository and Node.js security advisories for official patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 2) In the interim, implement strict validation of ECDSA signatures to reject BER-encoded signatures and accept only DER-encoded signatures, which are less susceptible to malleability. 3) Audit all cryptographic operations in applications using the Elliptic package to identify and remediate any reliance on signature uniqueness assumptions that could be compromised. 4) Employ additional cryptographic safeguards such as transaction nonces or timestamps to mitigate replay risks. 5) Conduct code reviews and penetration testing focused on signature handling to detect potential exploitation paths. 6) Educate development teams about signature malleability risks and secure coding practices related to cryptographic verification. 7) Consider using alternative, well-maintained cryptographic libraries with robust signature validation if immediate patching is not feasible. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on signature format enforcement and operational controls to reduce exploitation likelihood.

Description

In the Elliptic package 6.5.6 for Node.js, ECDSA signature malleability occurs because BER-encoded signatures are allowed.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2024-42461 lies in the potential undermining of cryptographic signature integrity. Systems that rely on the Elliptic package for ECDSA signature verification—such as blockchain platforms, secure messaging, authentication services, or digital transaction systems—may be vulnerable to signature malleability attacks. This could allow attackers to create alternative valid signatures, potentially enabling replay attacks, transaction fraud, or bypassing signature-based non-repudiation mechanisms. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity of critical cryptographic operations is weakened. This can erode trust in digital signatures and complicate forensic or audit processes. European financial institutions, technology companies, and public sector entities using Node.js with Elliptic for cryptographic functions should be particularly vigilant. The medium severity rating suggests that while the threat is not immediately critical, it poses a meaningful risk that could be exploited in targeted attacks or combined with other vulnerabilities to escalate impact.

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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, 22:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats