VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-53359: ethereum · Unchecked Error Condition

Affects ethereumSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.18.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.18.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 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 2 Jul 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 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

Upgrade ethereum to 0.18.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
crates.ioethereum`pkg:cargo/ethereum`Other threats	Affected <0.18.0	Fixed in 0.18.0

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade the ethereum crate to version 0.18.0 or later, where the signature malleability checks are correctly implemented for all transaction types. For organizations unable to upgrade immediately, implementing manual signature malleability checks for EIP-2930, EIP-1559, and EIP-7702 transactions outside the crate is recommended to ensure compliance with EIP-2 standards. Additionally, organizations should audit their blockchain transaction validation processes to detect any anomalies caused by signature malleability. Integrating comprehensive transaction monitoring and anomaly detection tools can help identify suspicious transaction patterns indicative of malleability exploitation. It is also advisable to review and test all dependent systems and smart contracts interacting with the ethereum crate to ensure they handle transaction signatures consistently. Finally, maintaining up-to-date dependency management and incorporating security testing in the development lifecycle will reduce exposure to similar specification deviations.

Description

ethereum is a common ethereum structs for Rust. Prior to ethereum crate v0.18.0, signature malleability (according to EIP-2) was only checked for "legacy" transactions, but not for EIP-2930, EIP-1559 and EIP-7702 transactions. This is a specification deviation. The signature malleability itself is not a security issue and not as high of a risk if the ethereum crate is used on a single-implementation blockchain. This issue has been patched in version v0.18.0. A workaround for this issue involves manually checking transaction malleability outside of the crate, however upgrading is recommended.

Impact

For European organizations involved in blockchain development, cryptocurrency exchanges, DeFi platforms, or any services relying on the rust-ethereum crate for transaction processing, this vulnerability could undermine transaction integrity and trustworthiness. In multi-client or multi-implementation blockchain environments, inconsistent signature validation might lead to transaction replay attacks or discrepancies in transaction acceptance, potentially resulting in financial losses or operational disruptions. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or availability, it impacts the integrity of transaction processing, which is critical for financial and contractual operations. Organizations using the affected crate in production environments risk transaction malleability issues that could complicate auditing, compliance, and dispute resolution. Given the growing adoption of Ethereum-based solutions in Europe, especially in fintech hubs and blockchain innovation centers, the impact could be significant if unpatched. However, the absence of known exploits and the medium CVSS score suggest the threat is moderate but warrants prompt attention.

CWE-754Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Implementation
If using exception handling, catch and throw specific exceptions instead of overly-general exceptions (CWE-396, CWE-397). Catch and handle exceptions as locally as possible so that exceptions do not propagate too far up the call stack (CWE-705). Avoid unchecked or uncaught exceptions where feasible (CWE-248).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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 2 Jul 2025, 16:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-754

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats