BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-52884High confidence

risc0-ethereum-contracts allows invalid commitment with digest value of zero to be accepted by Steel.validateCommitment

risc0 · risc0-ethereum

1.7LowCVSS 4.0
Recommended action
Within 7 days

Low technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2025-19064

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

Low technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

RISC Zero is a zero-knowledge verifiable general computing platform, with Ethereum integration. The risc0-ethereum repository contains Solidity verifier contracts, Steel EVM view call library, and supporting code. Prior to versions 2.1.1 and 2.2.0, the `Steel.validateCommitment` Solidity library function will return `true` for a crafted commitment with a digest value of zero. This violates the semantics of `validateCommitment`, as this does not commitment to a block that is in the current chain. Because the digest is zero, it does not correspond to any block and there exist no known openings. As a result, this commitment will never be produced by a correct zkVM guest using Steel and leveraging this bug to compromise the soundness of a program using Steel would require a separate bug or misuse of the Steel library, which is expected to be used to validate the root of state opening proofs. A fix has been released as part of `risc0-ethereum` 2.1.1 and 2.2.0. Users for the `Steel` Solidity library versions 2.1.0 or earlier should ensure they are using `Steel.validateCommitment` in tandem with zkVM proof verification of a Steel program, as shown in the ERC-20 counter example, and documentation. This is the correct usage of Steel, and users following this pattern are not at risk, and do not need to take action. Users not verifying a zkVM proof of a Steel program should update their application to do so, as this is incorrect usage of Steel.

What

RISC Zero is a zero-knowledge verifiable general computing platform, with Ethereum integration. The risc0-ethereum repository contains Solidity verifier contracts, Steel EVM view call library, and supporting code. Prior to versions 2.1.1 and 2.2.0, the `Steel.validateCommitment` Solidity library function will return `true` for a crafted commitment with a digest value of zero. This violates the semantics of `validateCommitment`, as this does not commitment to a block that is in the current chain. Because the digest is zero, it does not correspond to any block and there exist no known openings. As a result, this commitment will never be produced by a correct zkVM guest using Steel and leveraging this bug to compromise the soundness of a program using Steel would require a separate bug or misuse of the Steel library, which is expected to be used to validate the root of state opening proofs. A fix has been released as part of `risc0-ethereum` 2.1.1 and 2.2.0. Users for the `Steel` Solidity library versions 2.1.0 or earlier should ensure they are using `Steel.validateCommitment` in tandem with zkVM proof verification of a Steel program, as shown in the ERC-20 counter example, and documentation. This is the correct usage of Steel, and users following this pattern are not at risk, and do not need to take action. Users not verifying a zkVM proof of a Steel program should update their application to do so, as this is incorrect usage of Steel.

Why

The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect on its behavior and integrity.

How

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.

What

RISC Zero is a zero-knowledge verifiable general computing platform, with Ethereum integration. The risc0-ethereum repository contains Solidity verifier contracts, Steel EVM view call library, and supporting code. Prior to versions 2.1.1 and 2.2.0, the `Steel.validateCommitment` Solidity library function will return `true` for a crafted commitment with a digest value of zero. This violates the semantics of `validateCommitment`, as this does not commitment to a block that is in the current chain. Because the digest is zero, it does not correspond to any block and there exist no known openings. As a result, this commitment will never be produced by a correct zkVM guest using Steel and leveraging this bug to compromise the soundness of a program using Steel would require a separate bug or misuse of the Steel library, which is expected to be used to validate the root of state opening proofs. A fix has been released as part of `risc0-ethereum` 2.1.1 and 2.2.0. Users for the `Steel` Solidity library versions 2.1.0 or earlier should ensure they are using `Steel.validateCommitment` in tandem with zkVM proof verification of a Steel program, as shown in the ERC-20 counter example, and documentation. This is the correct usage of Steel, and users following this pattern are not at risk, and do not need to take action. Users not verifying a zkVM proof of a Steel program should update their application to do so, as this is incorrect usage of Steel.

Why

The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect on its behavior and integrity.

How

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.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
Reference recorded

CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.

Likely attack path
a network path → Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Network
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
Security boundary
Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-159

CWE-159: Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements. The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect on its behavior and integrity.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCNoneVulnerable-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VILowVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
NetworkUnauthenticatedCWE-159Public exploit reference
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

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
< 2.1.1
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. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 24 Jun 2025 · Last source change 24 Jun 2025, 20:49 UTC · CWE-159 · Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-19064
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
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.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2025-52884 · cve.blacktree.nl