CVE-2025-14505VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-14505: Elliptic · Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation

Affects EllipticSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.6 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Jan 2026
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Elliptic	Affected <=6.6.1	Fixed in–
npmelliptic`pkg:npm/elliptic`Other threats	Affected <=6.6.1	Fixed in–
npmelliptic`pkg:npm/elliptic`Other threats	Affected <=6.6.1	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-2025-14505, European organizations should take the following specific actions: 1) Monitor Elliptic package releases closely and apply security patches promptly once available, as the vulnerability affects all versions ≤6.6.1. 2) Conduct an inventory of systems and applications using Elliptic for ECDSA operations to identify affected components. 3) Implement additional signature verification checks to detect anomalous or malformed signatures that may indicate exploitation attempts. 4) Where feasible, rotate cryptographic keys used with Elliptic to limit exposure in case of key compromise. 5) Employ cryptographic libraries with verified and tested implementations as alternatives until patches are applied. 6) Increase logging and monitoring around signature generation and verification processes to detect suspicious activities. 7) Educate developers and security teams about the risks of nonce truncation and the importance of deterministic nonce generation per RFC 6979. 8) For blockchain or transaction systems, consider implementing multi-signature or threshold signature schemes to reduce single-point key compromise risks. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on operational detection, key management, and alternative cryptographic controls tailored to this specific vulnerability.

Description

CVE-2025-14505 is a medium-severity vulnerability in the Elliptic package's ECDSA implementation, where an incorrect computation of the byte-length of the ephemeral value 'k' leads to truncation when 'k' has leading zeros. This flaw causes faulty digital signatures and breaks legitimate transactions or communications. More critically, attackers who obtain both a faulty signature and a correct signature for the same input under certain conditions may derive the secret private key, compromising cryptographic confidentiality. The vulnerability affects all Elliptic versions up to and including 6.6.1. Exploitation requires network access but no privileges or user interaction, and no known exploits are currently in the wild. European organizations relying on Elliptic for cryptographic operations, especially in financial or blockchain applications, face risks of transaction failures and potential key compromise. Mitigation involves updating to a patched Elliptic version once available, auditing signature generation for anomalies, and implementing additional cryptographic safeguards. Countries with significant blockchain, fintech, and cryptography-dependent sectors such as Germany, the UK, France, and the Netherlands are most likely to be impacted.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-14505 is multifaceted. First, the generation of incorrect ECDSA signatures can disrupt legitimate transactions, communications, and authentication processes, leading to operational downtime and loss of trust in cryptographic systems. This is particularly critical for financial institutions, blockchain platforms, and any service relying on Elliptic for digital signatures. Second, the potential exposure of private keys through cryptanalysis poses a severe confidentiality risk. Compromised keys can allow attackers to impersonate legitimate users, forge signatures, and conduct fraudulent transactions or data tampering. Given the widespread adoption of Elliptic in cryptographic libraries and blockchain technologies, organizations in sectors such as fintech, government digital services, and critical infrastructure could face targeted attacks. The medium severity rating suggests that while exploitation is not trivial, the consequences of successful attacks are significant. Additionally, the lack of known exploits currently in the wild provides a window for proactive mitigation. Failure to address this vulnerability could lead to reputational damage, regulatory penalties under GDPR for data breaches, and financial losses.

Summary

CVE-2025-14505 identifies a cryptographic vulnerability in the Elliptic package's ECDSA signature generation process. The flaw arises from an incorrect calculation of the byte-length of the ephemeral nonce 'k' during signature generation, specifically when 'k' contains leading zeros. According to RFC 6979, 'k' is deterministically generated to ensure cryptographic security. However, Elliptic versions ≤6.6.1 truncate 'k' due to miscalculation, resulting in malformed signatures. These faulty signatures cause legitimate transactions or communications relying on ECDSA to fail verification, impacting availability and integrity. More alarmingly, the vulnerability enables cryptanalysis attacks: if an attacker can obtain both a faulty signature and a correct signature for the same message, they may recover the private key. This key exposure compromises confidentiality and the overall security of cryptographic operations. The CVSS 3.1 score is 5.6 (medium), reflecting network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges or user interaction required, and partial impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. No patches were linked at the time of reporting, and no known exploits are in the wild, but the risk remains significant due to the potential for secret key recovery. The vulnerability is categorized under CWE-1240, indicating the use of a cryptographic primitive with a risky implementation. Organizations using Elliptic for blockchain, digital signatures, or secure communications must be aware of this flaw and prepare to update or mitigate accordingly.

CWE-1240Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
Requirements
Require compliance with the strongest-available recommendations from trusted parties, and require that compliance must be kept up-to-date, since recommendations evolve over time. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the architecture/design uses the strongest-available primitives and algorithms from trusted parties. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cryptanalysis (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 15 Jan 2026, 22:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1240

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats