Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.21% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gogithub.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-kad-dht | SEMVER: introduced 0; last affected 0.20.0 | Not stated | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| gogithub.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-kad-dht | <= 0.20.0 | Not stated | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 12 Dec 2024 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedThe Kademlia DHT (go-libp2p-kad-dht 0.20.0 and earlier) used in IPFS (0.18.1 and earlier) assigns routing information for content (i.e., information about who holds the content) to be stored by peers whose peer IDs have a small DHT distance from the content ID. This allows an attacker to censor content by generating many Sybil peers whose peer IDs have a small distance from the content ID, thus hijacking the content resolution process.
The Kademlia DHT (go-libp2p-kad-dht 0.20.0 and earlier) used in IPFS (0.18.1 and earlier) assigns routing information for content (i.e., information about who holds the content) to be stored by peers whose peer IDs have a small DHT distance from the content ID. This allows an attacker to censor content by generating many Sybil peers whose peer IDs have a small distance from the content ID, thus hijacking the content resolution process.
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
The Kademlia DHT (go-libp2p-kad-dht 0.20.0 and earlier) used in IPFS (0.18.1 and earlier) assigns routing information for content (i.e., information about who holds the content) to be stored by peers whose peer IDs have a small DHT distance from the content ID. This allows an attacker to censor content by generating many Sybil peers whose peer IDs have a small distance from the content ID, thus hijacking the content resolution process.
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 25 Oct 2024 · Last source change 25 Oct 2024, 19:56 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.