CVE-2025-52556VulnerabilityPublished 21 Jun 2025Updated 23 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-52556: trailofbits rfc3161-client · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects trailofbits rfc3161-clientSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 1.0.3 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Jun 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 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 trailofbits rfc3161-client to 1.0.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIrfc3161-client`pkg:pypi/rfc3161-client`Other threats	Affected <1.0.3	Fixed in 1.0.3

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

AI-suggested

The primary and only effective mitigation is to upgrade all instances of the rfc3161-client library to version 1.0.3 or later, where the signature verification logic has been corrected. Organizations should perform an immediate inventory of software and systems that utilize this library, including indirect dependencies in software supply chains. For environments where upgrading is not immediately feasible, consider isolating or restricting network access to timestamping services relying on the vulnerable library to reduce exposure. Implement additional application-layer validation or cross-checks of timestamp authenticity where possible, such as verifying timestamps against multiple independent TSAs. Security teams should monitor for any unusual timestamp anomalies or discrepancies in logs and audit trails. Finally, incorporate this vulnerability into vulnerability management and patching workflows to ensure timely remediation and prevent reintroduction in future deployments.

Description

rfc3161-client is a Python library implementing the Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP) described in RFC 3161. Prior to version 1.0.3, there is a flaw in the timestamp response signature verification logic. In particular, chain verification is performed against the TSR's embedded certificates up to the trusted root(s), but fails to verify the TSR's own signature against the timestamping leaf certificates. Consequently, vulnerable versions perform insufficient signature validation to properly consider a TSR verified, as the attacker can introduce any TSR signature so long as the embedded leaf chains up to some root TSA. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.3. There is no workaround for this issue.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be substantial, especially in sectors relying heavily on digital signatures and trusted timestamps such as finance, legal, healthcare, and government. The improper verification could allow attackers to forge timestamps on critical documents, contracts, or logs, leading to disputes over document authenticity, fraudulent backdating, or tampering with audit trails. This undermines trust in digital evidence and can have legal and regulatory consequences under frameworks like eIDAS, GDPR, and sector-specific compliance regimes. Organizations using rfc3161-client in their infrastructure or software products risk data integrity breaches and potential financial or reputational damage. Since timestamping is often integral to blockchain anchoring, software supply chain security, and secure logging, the vulnerability could also indirectly affect broader security postures. The lack of a workaround means that vulnerable systems remain exposed until patched, increasing the window of risk. Given the criticality of the flaw and the widespread use of Python libraries in European IT environments, the threat is significant.

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 21 Jun 2025, 11:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats