Skip to content

ecdsa Denial of Service vulnerability in signature verification and signature malleability

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Oct 7, 2019 in tlsfuzzer/python-ecdsa • Updated Sep 20, 2024

Package

pip ecdsa (pip)

Affected versions

< 0.13.3

Patched versions

0.13.3

Description

possible DoS in signature verification and signature malleability

Impact

Code using VerifyingKey.verify() and VerifyingKey.verify_digest() may receive exceptions other than the documented BadSignatureError when signatures are malformed. If those other exceptions are not caught, they may lead to program termination and thus Denial of Service

Code using VerifyingKey.verify() and VerifyingKey.verify_digest() with sigdecode option using ecdsa.util.sigdecode_der will accept signatures even if they are not properly formatted DER. This makes the signatures malleable. It impacts only applications that later sign the signatures or verify signatures of signatures, e.g. Bitcoin.

All versions between 0.5 and 0.13.2 (inclusive) are thought to be vulnerable. Code before 0.5 may be vulnerable but didn't receive extended analysis to rule this issue out.

Patches

The patches have been merged to master branch in tlsfuzzer/python-ecdsa#115.
The backported patches for a release in the 0.13 branch are in tlsfuzzer/python-ecdsa#124

They are part of the 0.13.3 release.

There are no plans to backport them to earlier releases.

Workarounds

It may be possible to prevent the Denial of Service by catching also UnexpectedDER, IndexError and AssertionError exceptions. That list hasn't been verified to be complete though. If those exceptions are raised, the signature verification process should consider the signature to be invalid.

To remediate signature malleability and the Denial of Service vulnerability, it may be possible to first verify that the signature is properly DER formatted ECDSA-Sig-Value, as defined in RFC3279, before passing it to verify() or verify_digest() methods. If the signature is determined to not follow the DER or encode a different structure, the signature verification process should consider the signature to be invalid.

References

https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Transaction_Malleability

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory please open an issue in python-ecdsa project.

References

@warner warner published to tlsfuzzer/python-ecdsa Oct 7, 2019
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Oct 8, 2019
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Nov 26, 2019
Reviewed Jun 16, 2020
Last updated Sep 20, 2024

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
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. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the 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. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

0.195%
(58th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2019-14853

GHSA ID

GHSA-pwfw-mgfj-7g3g

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.