CVE-2025-29779
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:P/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-29779 is a medium-severity Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation (CWE-1240) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.4 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Weaken Encryption (T1600); ranked at the 8th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-12 (Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6723
Vulnerability Data
Post-Quantum Secure Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing provides a Python implementation of Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing (VSS) scheme. In versions 0.8.0b2 and prior, the `secure_redundant_execution` function in feldman_vss.py attempts to mitigate fault injection attacks by executing a function multiple times and…
more
comparing results. However, several critical weaknesses exist. Python's execution environment cannot guarantee true isolation between redundant executions, the constant-time comparison implementation in Python is subject to timing variations, the randomized execution order and timing provide insufficient protection against sophisticated fault attacks, and the error handling may leak timing information about partial execution results. These limitations make the protection ineffective against targeted fault injection attacks, especially from attackers with physical access to the hardware. A successful fault injection attack could allow an attacker to bypass the redundancy check mechanisms, extract secret polynomial coefficients during share generation or verification, force the acceptance of invalid shares during verification, and/or manipulate the commitment verification process to accept fraudulent commitments. This undermines the core security guarantees of the Verifiable Secret Sharing scheme. As of time of publication, no patched versions of Post-Quantum Secure Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing exist, but other mitigations are available. Long-term remediation requires reimplementing the security-critical functions in a lower-level language like Rust. Short-term mitigations include deploying the software in environments with physical security controls, increasing the redundancy count (from 5 to a higher number) by modifying the source code, adding external verification of cryptographic operations when possible, considering using hardware security modules (HSMs) for key operations.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 12 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V11.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security engineering principles require correct initialization sequencing so that supporting units supply valid data before any cryptographic operation begins.
Cryptographic key establishment and management processes ensure required keys and material are generated and available before operations that depend on them are permitted.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require use of approved, proven cryptographic implementations and forbid risky custom ones.
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.
Mandates approved cryptographic controls, directly preventing use of risky or non-compliant implementations.
Security testing can detect use of weak or non-compliant cryptographic primitives before deployment.
Secure SDLC requires vetted crypto libraries and standards, reducing risky custom implementations.
Application security requirements can specify approved cryptographic standards and disallow risky primitives.
Secure architecture principles include selection of proven cryptographic components and avoidance of custom risky implementations.
Secure coding standards prohibit non-standard or disallowed cryptographic algorithms.
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-248524 OL 8 must implement NIST FIPS-validated cryptography for the following: To provision digital signatures, to generate cryptographic hashes, and to protect data requiring data-at-rest protections in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards. prevents CWE-1240
- V-248534 OL 8 must employ FIPS 140-2 approved cryptographic hashing algorithms for all stored passwords. prevents CWE-1240
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271628 OL 9 must employ FIPS 140-3 approved cryptographic hashing algorithms for all stored passwords. prevents CWE-1240
RHEL 8 (2 rules)
- V-230223 RHEL 8 must implement NIST FIPS-validated cryptography for the following: To provision digital signatures, to generate cryptographic hashes, and to protect data requiring data-at-rest protections in accordance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, policies, regulations, and standards. prevents CWE-1240
- V-230224 All RHEL 8 local disk partitions must implement cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure or modification of all information that requires at rest protection. prevents CWE-1240