VulnerabilityPublished 12 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59058: junkurihara httpsig-rs · Timing Side Channel

Affects junkurihara httpsig-rsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.0.19 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.0.19

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 12 Sep 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 junkurihara httpsig-rs to 0.0.19.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
junkurihara httpsig-rs	Affected <0.0.19	Fixed in 0.0.19

AI-suggested

Immediate upgrade: Organizations should upgrade httpsig-rs to version 0.0.19 or later, where the timing-safe comparison is implemented.
Code audit: Review all applications and services that use httpsig-rs for HS256 signature verification to confirm the library version and usage patterns.
Implement rate limiting and anomaly detection on endpoints verifying signatures to detect and mitigate repeated timing attack attempts.
Use additional layers of authentication or message integrity verification where feasible to reduce reliance on a single signature mechanism.
Monitor network traffic for unusual patterns indicative of timing attack probing, such as high-frequency signature verification requests with varying inputs.
Educate developers about timing attacks and the importance of constant-time cryptographic operations to prevent similar vulnerabilities in custom code.

Description

httpsig-rs is a Rust implementation of IETF RFC 9421 http message signatures. Prior to version 0.0.19, the HMAC signature comparison is not timing-safe. This makes anyone who uses HS256 signature verification vulnerable to a timing attack that allows the attacker to forge a signature. Version 0.0.19 fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations using the httpsig-rs library versions prior to 0.0.19 in their applications or services that rely on HS256 HTTP message signatures, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of signed HTTP communications. Attackers could forge signatures to impersonate legitimate clients or servers, bypass authentication, or inject malicious requests that appear authentic. This could lead to unauthorized actions, data manipulation, or privilege escalation within affected systems. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the loss of integrity can undermine trust in critical communication channels, especially in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government where message authenticity is paramount. The medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation is non-trivial but feasible, and the lack of known exploits suggests a window of opportunity for proactive mitigation. Given the increasing adoption of Rust in secure and performance-sensitive applications across Europe, organizations integrating httpsig-rs should assess their exposure promptly.

CWE-208Observable Timing Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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 12 Sep 2025, 13:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-208

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats