CVE-2025-30147
18h27 +00:00
Deskripsi CVE
ALTBN128_ADD, ALTBN128_MUL, ALTBN128_PAIRING precompile functions do not check if points are on curve
Besu Native contains scripts and tooling that is used to build and package the native libraries used by the Ethereum client Hyperledger Besu. Besu 24.7.1 through 25.2.2, corresponding to besu-native versions 0.9.0 through 1.2.1, have a potential consensus bug for the precompiles ALTBN128_ADD (0x06), ALTBN128_MUL (0x07), and ALTBN128_PAIRING (0x08). These precompiles were reimplemented in besu-native using gnark-crypto's bn254 implementation, as the former implementation used a library which was no longer maintained and not sufficiently performant. The new gnark implementation was initially added in version 0.9.0 of besu-native but was not utilized by Besu until version 0.9.2 in Besu 24.7.1. The issue is that there are EC points which may be crafted which are in the correct subgroup but are not on the curve and the besu-native gnark implementation was relying on subgroup checks to perform point-on-curve checks as well. The version of gnark-crypto used at the time did not do this check when performing subgroup checks. The result is that it was possible for Besu to give an incorrect result and fall out of consensus when executing one of these precompiles against a specially crafted input point. Additionally, homogenous Besu-only networks can potentially enshrine invalid state which would be incorrect and difficult to process with patched versions of besu which handle these calls correctly. The underlying defect has been patched in besu-native release 1.3.0. The fixed version of Besu is version 25.3.0. As a workaround for versions of Besu with the problem, the native precompile for altbn128 may be disabled in favor of the pure-java implementation. The pure java implementation is significantly slower, but does not have this consensus issue.Informasi CVE
Kelemahan Terkait
| Nama Kelemahan | Sumber | |
|---|---|---|
| Missing Cryptographic Step The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm. |
Metrik
| Metrik | Skor | Tingkat keparahan | CVSS Vektor | Sumber |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V4.0 | 8.7 | HIGH |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Informasi lebih lanjut
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. 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 This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. 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 This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. 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 This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthenticated 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 This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. 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. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System. Sub Confidentiality Impact Negligible There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Integrity Impact None There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Availability Impact None There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Threat MetricsThe Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure. Supplemental MetricsSupplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer. |
EPSS
Skor EPSS
Persentil EPSS
Referensi
Tags : x_refsource_CONFIRM
