Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-24800

Published
28 January 2025
Modified
15 April 2026
CVSS Score v4 9.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0032 24th percentile
Risk Priority 45 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2025-24800 is a critical-severity Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (CWE-347) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Supply Chain Compromise (T1195); ranked at the 24th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SC-13 (Cryptographic Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Hyperbridge is a hyper-scalable coprocessor for verifiable, cross-chain interoperability. A critical vulnerability was discovered in the ismp-grandpa crate, that allowed a malicious prover easily convince the verifier of the finality of arbitrary headers. This could be used to steal funds…

more

or compromise other kinds of cross-chain applications. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.0.1.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1195 Supply Chain Compromise Initial Access
Adversaries may manipulate products or product delivery mechanisms prior to receipt by a final consumer for the purpose of data or system compromise.
T1195.002 Compromise Software Supply Chain Initial Access
Adversaries may manipulate application software prior to receipt by a final consumer for the purpose of data or system compromise.
T1542 Pre-OS Boot Stealth
Adversaries may abuse Pre-OS Boot mechanisms as a way to establish persistence on a system.
T1553 Subvert Trust Controls Defense Impairment
Adversaries may undermine security controls that will either warn users of untrusted activity or prevent execution of untrusted programs.
T1553.002 Code Signing Defense Impairment
Adversaries may create, acquire, or steal code signing materials to sign their malware or tools.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-55735Shared CWE-347
CVE-2024-49394Shared CWE-347
CVE-2023-28226Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-6873Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-0265Shared CWE-347
CVE-2025-52648Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-3562Shared CWE-347
CVE-2026-19910Shared CWE-347
CVE-2024-7344Shared CWE-347
CVE-2025-2763Shared CWE-347

Affected Assets

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)
  • 14 hardening rules · 5 OS baselines
Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V9.2.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.

Requiring cryptographic protection mechanisms forces correct signature verification to be implemented for data protection.

Mandating integrity verification tools directly requires proper cryptographic signature checking to detect unauthorized changes.

Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.

Protecting session authenticity requires correct verification of cryptographic signatures or equivalent mechanisms.

Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.DS-01 mostly match
prevents

Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-at-rest, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.

PR.DS-02 mostly match
prevents

Digital signatures are explicitly cited to protect integrity of data-in-transit, so proper verification directly mitigates the weakness.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.

ID.RA-09 partial match
prevents

Requires assessing authenticity and integrity of acquired assets, which commonly relies on signature verification but is limited to pre-acquisition.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.

prevents

Establishing approved cryptographic solutions and usage practices lowers the probability that signature-verification steps will be omitted or incorrectly implemented.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.

prevents

Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.

prevents

Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.

Hardening callouts derived

Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).

Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
  • V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
  • V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
Oracle Linux 9 (2 rules)
  • V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347
  • V-271523 OL 9 must check the GPG signature of locally installed software packages before installation. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
  • V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
  • V-204448 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
  • V-230264 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-347
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
  • V-257822 RHEL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-347

References