CVE-2024-48949VulnerabilityPublished 10 Oct 2024Updated 25 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-48949: elliptic · n/a

Affects ellipticSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 6.5.6 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.5.6

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 10 Oct 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

Upgrade elliptic to 6.5.6.

Affected software

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

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their Node.js environments to identify usage of the Elliptic package, particularly versions prior to 6.5.6. Upgrading to version 6.5.6 or later, where the vulnerability is patched, is the primary and most effective mitigation. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, organizations should consider implementing additional application-layer signature validation checks to enforce the missing S value constraints. Employing runtime application self-protection (RASP) or Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect anomalous signature verification attempts may provide temporary defense. Organizations should also conduct thorough code reviews and penetration testing focused on cryptographic operations to detect potential exploitation. Monitoring network traffic and application logs for unusual signature verification failures or anomalies can help detect early exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should maintain updated incident response plans to quickly address any compromise resulting from this vulnerability.

Description

The verify function in lib/elliptic/eddsa/index.js in the Elliptic package before 6.5.6 for Node.js omits "sig.S().gte(sig.eddsa.curve.n) || sig.S().isNeg()" validation.

Impact

The impact on European organizations could be severe, particularly for those relying on Node.js applications that use the Elliptic package for cryptographic signature verification. Compromise of signature verification can lead to unauthorized access, data integrity violations, and potential impersonation attacks. Sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure that depend on secure cryptographic operations are at heightened risk. Attackers exploiting this vulnerability could forge signatures to bypass authentication or authorization controls, manipulate transactions, or inject malicious data. This undermines trust in digital signatures and could lead to financial losses, regulatory penalties, and damage to reputation. Given the network-based attack vector and no requirement for privileges or user interaction, the vulnerability can be exploited remotely and at scale, increasing the threat surface for European organizations. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation before widespread exploitation occurs.

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 25 Nov 2025, 16:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats