CVE-2023-33252
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 · uneditediden3 snarkjs through 0.6.11 allows double spending because there is no validation that the publicSignals length is less than the field modulus.
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 · high confidencesnarkjs through version 0.6.11 lacks validation that the publicSignals array length is less than the field modulus during zero-knowledge proof verification. This allows attackers to craft proofs with manipulated public signals that bypass intended proof logic, enabling double-spending in blockchain or financial applications using this library.
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<= 0.6.11CVSS 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:3.1/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 installed snarkjs versionRun `npm list snarkjs` or inspect package.json dependencies to identify the installed versionAffected if The installed version is 0.6.11 or earlier
-
Identify snarkjs verification usageSearch codebase for calls to snarkjs verify functions (typically `circom` or `groth16` verify exported from snarkjs)Affected if The codebase performs proof verification using snarkjs without additional validation
-
Check for publicSignals length validationSearch source code for explicit checks validating publicSignals.length against the field modulus (commonly 21888242871839275222246405745257275088548364400416034343698204186575808495617 for BN254) before calling verifyAffected if No application-level validation exists and the snarkjs version is vulnerable (0.6.11 or earlier)
-
Verify proof verification flowInspect the code path where publicSignals are passed to snarkjs verify function to confirm they originate from untrusted input sourcesAffected if Public signals are received from external/prove inputs without validation and snarkjs version is <= 0.6.11
A user is affected if they run snarkjs version 0.6.11 or earlier and use it to verify proofs with publicSignals from untrusted sources without implementing their own length validation.
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 dataUpgrade snarkjs to version 0.6.12 or later which includes the missing publicSignals length validation, or implement application-level validation checking publicSignals.length < fieldModulus before proof verification.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-33252 — 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-2023-33252 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