VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2025Updated 18 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64186: Evervault Go SDK · Incomplete PCR Validation in Enclave Attestation for non-Evervault hosted Enclaves

Affects github.com/evervault/evervault-goSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-64186· High 8.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 1.3.2 soon.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 20:03 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.7High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	8.7

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.3.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 12 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 13 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 github.com/evervault/evervault-go to 1.3.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/evervault/evervault-go	Affected <1.3.2	Fixed in 1.3.2

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to evervault-go SDK version 1.3.2 or later, which contains the official fix for this vulnerability. If upgrading is not possible and you attest enclaves outside Evervault environments, implement application logic to fail verification if PCR8 is missing or empty and add custom pre-validation to reject attestation documents omitting required PCRs.

Description

A vulnerability in the evervault-go SDK's enclave attestation verification logic allows incomplete attestation documents to pass validation, potentially causing clients to trust enclaves that do not meet integrity guarantees. The issue mainly affects applications that only check PCR8, with reduced impact if PCR0, PCR1, and PCR2 are also checked. The flaw is fixed in version 1.3.2 by improving attestation document validation and PCR comparison logic. Workarounds exist for users who cannot upgrade, involving stricter PCR presence checks.

Impact

Successful exploitation may cause clients to trust enclaves that do not meet expected integrity guarantees, potentially compromising confidentiality and integrity of data processed within those enclaves. The CVSS 3.1 score is 8.7 (high severity) reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, high privileges required, no user interaction, scope change, and high confidentiality and integrity impact. Availability impact is none. The exploitability is limited in Evervault-hosted environments due to domain and TLS certificate acquisition controls.

Summary

The evervault-go SDK prior to version 1.3.2 contains a vulnerability (CVE-2025-64186) in its enclave attestation verification logic. Specifically, the SDK may allow incomplete attestation documents to pass validation due to naive equality checks on PCR values, especially when only PCR8 is checked. This can lead to trusting enclave operators that do not meet expected integrity guarantees. The vulnerability is mitigated in Evervault-hosted environments due to domain and TLS certificate restrictions. The issue is addressed in version 1.3.2 by validating attestation documents before caching and replacing naive equality checks with a more robust SatisfiedBy check. Workarounds include application-level validation to ensure required PCRs are present and non-empty.

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 13 Nov 2026, 20:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats