Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.19% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-45039High confidence
gnark's Groth16 commitment extension unsound for more than one commitment
Consensys · gnark
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-Q3HW-3GM4-W5CR ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
6.2MediumCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Consensys gnark and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges1 source-attributed range
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/consensys/gnark | <= 0.10.0 | 0.11.0 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 20 Nov 2024 |
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
gnark is a fast zk-SNARK library that offers a high-level API to design circuits. Versions prior to 0.11.0 have a soundness issue - in case of multiple commitments used inside the circuit the prover is able to choose all but the last commitment. As gnark uses the commitments for optimized non-native multiplication, lookup checks etc. as random challenges, then it could impact the soundness of the whole circuit. However, using multiple commitments has been discouraged due to the additional cost to the verifier and it has not been supported in the recursive in-circuit Groth16 verifier and Solidity verifier. gnark's maintainers expect the impact of the issue be very small - only for the users who have implemented the native Groth16 verifier or are using it with multiple commitments. We do not have information of such users. The issue has been patched in version 0.11.0. As a workaround, users should follow gnark maintainers' recommendation to use only a single commitment and then derive in-circuit commitments as needed using the `std/multicommit` package.
What
gnark is a fast zk-SNARK library that offers a high-level API to design circuits. Versions prior to 0.11.0 have a soundness issue - in case of multiple commitments used inside the circuit the prover is able to choose all but the last commitment. As gnark uses the commitments for optimized non-native multiplication, lookup checks etc. as random challenges, then it could impact the soundness of the whole circuit. However, using multiple commitments has been discouraged due to the additional cost to the verifier and it has not been supported in the recursive in-circuit Groth16 verifier and Solidity verifier. gnark's maintainers expect the impact of the issue be very small - only for the users who have implemented the native Groth16 verifier or are using it with multiple commitments. We do not have information of such users. The issue has been patched in version 0.11.0. As a workaround, users should follow gnark maintainers' recommendation to use only a single commitment and then derive in-circuit commitments as needed using the `std/multicommit` package.
Why
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
gnark is a fast zk-SNARK library that offers a high-level API to design circuits. Versions prior to 0.11.0 have a soundness issue - in case of multiple commitments used inside the circuit the prover is able to choose all but the last commitment. As gnark uses the commitments for optimized non-native multiplication, lookup checks etc. as random challenges, then it could impact the soundness of the whole circuit. However, using multiple commitments has been discouraged due to the additional cost to the verifier and it has not been supported in the recursive in-circuit Groth16 verifier and Solidity verifier. gnark's maintainers expect the impact of the issue be very small - only for the users who have implemented the native Groth16 verifier or are using it with multiple commitments. We do not have information of such users. The issue has been patched in version 0.11.0. As a workaround, users should follow gnark maintainers' recommendation to use only a single commitment and then derive in-circuit commitments as needed using the `std/multicommit` package.
Why
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-200 ↗
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor. The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- gnark: < 0.11.0
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 6 Sept 2024 · Last source change 6 Sept 2024, 13:59 UTC · CWE-200 · Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-2851
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.