VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-125335: Forge · Ed25519 signature verification accepts small-order public keys

Affects node-forgeSource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-33895

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-125335· Low 3.7

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low : upgrade to 1.4.3 when convenient.

Data as of 10 Nov 2026, 22:34 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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	3.7

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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 on 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 Nov 2026
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 10 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 node-forge to 1.4.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmnode-forge	Affected <1.4.3	Fixed in 1.4.3

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

Description

### Summary `ed25519.verify()` does not reject public keys of small order, such as the identity point. Under such a key, a signature with `S = 0` and a small-order `R` verifies for many messages, or for every message with the identity key, without any private key. Fixed in node-forge 1.4.3. ### Details `crypto_sign_open()` in `lib/ed25519.js` decodes the public key `A` with `unpackneg()`, which only checks that the point is on the curve, and then checks `R == [S]B - [k]A` with `k = SHA-512(R || A || M)`. Nothing rejects public keys of small order: the identity point, the other 7 points of order 2, 4 or 8, and their non-canonical encodings with `y >= p`. With `S = 0`, the check becomes `R == [k](-A)`. For a small-order `A`, `[k](-A)` is one of at most 8 small-order points, so an attacker can make a valid signature by trying the small-order values of `R`. For the identity key (`01 00 … 00`), `R = identity` and `S = 0` verifies for every message. For the other small-order keys, a given message can be forged with high probability. No private key is involved. The `S < L` check added for CVE-2026-33895 (GHSA-q67f-28xg-22rw) doesn't apply, because `S = 0` is canonical. Keys produced by Ed25519 key generation (`ed25519.generateKeyPair()` or any RFC 8032 implementation) are never small-order, so signatures under them cannot be forged this way. Applications are affected when they verify signatures against a public key an attacker can choose (for example a key included with the signed data, a self-registered key, or a key in an attacker-controlled document) and rely on the signature being bound to the message: proof of possession, attribution, non-repudiation or deduplication. RFC 8032 doesn't require rejecting small-order public keys, and implementations differ. libsodium rejects them, and Node.js `crypto.verify()` (OpenSSL) rejects these signatures. The fix rejects a public key `A` when `[8]A` is the identity point. This covers all small-order points and their non-canonical encodings. #### Patches Fixed in node-forge 1.4.3. `ed25519.verify()` returns `false` for small-order public keys. #### Workarounds Before calling `ed25519.verify()` with a public key from untrusted input, reject keys whose 32-byte encoding is one of the small-order points (the identity `01 00 … 00` and the other encodings that libsodium blocks), or only verify against keys you generated or have otherwise validated. #### Resources - RFC 8032, Section 5.1.7 (Ed25519 verification): https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8032#section-5.1.7 - GHSA-q67f-28xg-22rw / CVE-2026-33895 (a different Ed25519 verification issue, fixed in 1.4.0): https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/security/advisories/GHSA-q67f-28xg-22rw #### Severity CVSS 3.1: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N (3.7, Low) CVSS 4.0 (informational): CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N (6.3) CVSS 4.0 rates this Moderate because its integrity weighting is higher; the severity rating follows CVSS 3.1. #### Credits Reported by @analisaperlengkapan. ### Proof of concept Identity public key `A = 01 00 … 00` (32 bytes) and signature `R = 01 00 … 00`, `S = 00 … 00` (64 bytes): forge.ed25519.verify({message: 'admin=true', encoding: 'utf8', signature: SIG, publicKey: IDENTITY}); // <= 1.4.2: true for any message; node:crypto.verify(): false // 1.4.3: false Other small-order public keys (orders 2, 4 and 8, and non-canonical encodings) give forgeries for many messages with `S = 0` and a small-order `R`. Regression tests are in tests/unit/ed25519.js, and the reporter's PoC is in tests/pocs/ghsa-6889-vf6x-f3g5.js. ### Impact Applications that verify Ed25519 signatures with node-forge against a public key that an attacker can choose are affected. An attacker can provide a small-order public key and then produce signatures that verify for many or all messages without a private key, defeating checks that rely on a signature being bound to its message under that key (proof of possession, attribution, non-repudiation, deduplication). Signatures under keys from honest key generation cannot be forged, and applications that only verify against their own or otherwise trusted keys are not affected.

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

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats