VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jan 2026Updated 12 Jan 2026

CVE-2026-22705: RustCrypto signatures · Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation

Affects RustCrypto signaturesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.4 Medium : upgrade to 0.1.0-rc.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.1.0-rc.2

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 10 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 24 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 RustCrypto signatures to 0.1.0-rc.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RustCryptosignatures	Affected <0.1.0-rc.2	Fixed in 0.1.0-rc.2
crates.iogithub/RustCrypto/signatures`pkg:cargo/github/RustCrypto/signatures`Other threats	Affected =0.1.0-rc.2	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all RustCrypto signatures library instances to version 0.1.0-rc.2 or later to apply the patch addressing the timing side-channel. Additionally, conduct a thorough audit of cryptographic implementations to identify and remediate other potential side-channel vulnerabilities, especially in custom or third-party cryptographic code. Employ constant-time cryptographic algorithms and side-channel resistant coding practices to minimize timing leakage. Restrict network access to systems performing cryptographic operations, particularly limiting local and adjacent network exposure. Implement monitoring to detect unusual timing measurement attempts or anomalous network activity that could indicate reconnaissance for side-channel attacks. Educate development teams on secure cryptographic implementation standards and encourage use of well-vetted libraries with active maintenance. Finally, maintain an inventory of cryptographic dependencies to ensure timely updates and vulnerability management.

Description

RustCrypto: Signatures offers support for digital signatures, which provide authentication of data using public-key cryptography. Prior to version 0.1.0-rc.2, a timing side-channel was discovered in the Decompose algorithm which is used during ML-DSA signing to generate hints for the signature. This issue has been patched in version 0.1.0-rc.2.

Impact

For European organizations, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of cryptographic operations relying on RustCrypto signatures, particularly in sectors such as finance, government, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure where digital signatures are essential for authentication and data integrity. Exploitation could lead to private key compromise, enabling attackers to forge signatures, impersonate entities, or tamper with signed data undetected. This undermines trust in secure communications and transactions. Although the attack complexity is high and requires network proximity, organizations with exposed internal networks or shared environments could be vulnerable. The lack of availability impact means systems remain operational, but the silent compromise of cryptographic keys could have long-term security consequences. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop techniques over time.

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 17 Jan 2026, 07:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1240

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats