NotaryApplication · Docker
CVE-2015-9258
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn Docker Notary before 0.1, gotuf/signed/verify.go has a Signature Algorithm Not Matched to Key vulnerability. Because an attacker controls the field specifying the signature algorithm, they might (for example) be able to forge a signature by forcing a misinterpretation of an RSA-PSS key as Ed25519 elliptic-curve data.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceDocker Notary before version 0.1 has a signature verification flaw in gotuf/signed/verify.go where the signature algorithm field can be controlled by an attacker. This allows forceable mismatching of signature algorithms to key types, potentially enabling signature forgery by tricking the verifier into misinterpreting RSA-PSS keys as Ed25519 elliptic-curve data.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
NotaryApplication
< 0.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if Docker Notary CLI is installedRun `notary --version` or `which notary` on the host systemAffected if The notary command is found and returns a version lower than 0.1
-
Check for Docker Notary server containerRun `docker ps -a | grep notary` to list any running or stopped Notary containers, then inspect with `docker inspect <container_id>` to find version detailsAffected if A Notary container image with a tag or version lower than 0.1 is present
-
Check Notary source code versionIf you have the Notary source code, locate the version tag or check the version file: look for a version.go, version.json, or git tags via `git tag`Affected if The source code version or git tag indicates a version lower than 0.1
-
Inspect the vulnerable verify.go fileIf accessible, examine the file gotuf/signed/verify.go for the presence of the `opts` parameter being used directly in signature verification without algorithm-to-key-type validationAffected if The code shows direct use of attacker-controllable algorithm field without validating it matches the key type
A user is affected if Docker Notary is installed and its version is any pre-0.1 release, since the signature algorithm field can be manipulated to mismatched key types leading to potential forgery.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data0.1
Upgrade Docker Notary to version 0.1 or later, which includes proper signature algorithm-to-key-type validation during signature verification.
Fix this in Notary
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,472.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-9258 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-9258 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data