VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026Updated 27 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-22696: Phala-Network dcap-qvl · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects Phala-Network dcap-qvlSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 0.3.9 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.3.9

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 26 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 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 Phala-Network dcap-qvl to 0.3.9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Phala-Networkdcap-qvl	Affected <0.3.9	Fixed in 0.3.9

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all deployments of the dcap-qvl library to version 0.3.9 or later to ensure proper cryptographic verification of QE Identity signatures and enforcement of QE Report policy constraints. Users of the @phala/dcap-qvl-node and @phala/dcap-qvl-web packages should migrate to the pure JavaScript implementation @phala/dcap-qvl and update to the patched version. It is critical to audit all systems using SGX or TDX quote verification to identify vulnerable versions of dcap-qvl. Since no workarounds exist, patching is the only effective mitigation. Organizations should also review their enclave attestation workflows and logs for any suspicious or anomalous quote verifications that might indicate exploitation attempts. Implementing network segmentation and strict access controls around provisioning and attestation services can reduce exposure. Additionally, monitoring for updates from Intel and Phala-Network regarding related components and applying security advisories promptly will help maintain a secure environment.

Description

dcap-qvl implements the quote verification logic for DCAP (Data Center Attestation Primitives). A vulnerability present in versions prior to 0.3.9 involves a critical gap in the cryptographic verification process within the dcap-qvl. The library fetches QE Identity collateral (including qe_identity, qe_identity_signature, and qe_identity_issuer_chain) from the PCCS. However, it skips to verify the QE Identity signature against its certificate chain and does not enforce policy constraints on the QE Report. An attacker can forge the QE Identity data to whitelist a malicious or non-Intel Quoting Enclave. This allows the attacker to forge the QE and sign untrusted quotes that the verifier will accept as valid. Effectively, this bypasses the entire remote attestation security model, as the verifier can no longer trust the entity responsible for signing the quotes. All deployments utilizing the dcap-qvl library for SGX or TDX quote verification are affected. The vulnerability has been patched in dcap-qvl version 0.3.9. The fix implements the missing cryptographic verification for the QE Identity signature and enforces the required checks for MRSIGNER, ISVPRODID, and ISVSVN against the QE Report. Users of the `@phala/dcap-qvl-node` and `@phala/dcap-qvl-web` packages should switch to the pure JavaScript implementation, `@phala/dcap-qvl`. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability. Users must upgrade to the patched version to ensure that QE Identity collateral is properly verified.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a severe risk to the integrity and trustworthiness of systems relying on Intel SGX or TDX remote attestation mechanisms that use the dcap-qvl library. The ability to forge QE Identity data and produce accepted fake quotes allows attackers to bypass enclave trust boundaries, potentially enabling unauthorized code execution within supposedly secure enclaves, data leakage, or manipulation of sensitive computations. This undermines the confidentiality and integrity guarantees provided by SGX/TDX, which are often used in critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and government services across Europe. The impact is particularly significant for cloud providers and enterprises deploying confidential computing solutions that rely on remote attestation to verify enclave authenticity. The lack of authentication or user interaction required for exploitation increases the attack surface and ease of exploitation. Failure to patch could lead to advanced persistent threats leveraging this flaw to compromise secure enclaves, resulting in data breaches, intellectual property theft, or disruption of secure services.

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).
CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (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

github.com/Phala-Network/dcap-qvl/security/advisories/GHSA-796p-j2gh-9m2q (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jan 2026, 19:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347, CWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats