CVE-2024-2881
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 · uneditedFault Injection vulnerability in wc_ed25519_sign_msg function in wolfssl/wolfcrypt/src/ed25519.c in WolfSSL wolfssl5.6.6 on Linux/Windows allows remote attacker co-resides in the same system with a victim process to disclose information and escalate privileges via Rowhammer fault injection to the ed25519_key structure.
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 confidenceFault injection vulnerability in WolfSSL's wc_ed25519_sign_msg function allows a co-located attacker to manipulate the ed25519_key structure via Rowhammer fault injection, potentially disclosing private key material and escalating privileges.
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= 5.6.6CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Identify WolfSSL versionRun `wolfssl version` or check the library file metadata (e.g., `dpkg -l | grep wolfssl`, `rpm -qi wolfssl`, or inspect libwolfssl.so version via `readelf -d` or `objdump -p`)Affected if The installed version is exactly 5.6.6
-
Locate WolfSSL header filesSearch for wolfssl/wolfcrypt/settings.h or wolfssl/wolfcrypt/ed25519.h in include directories; check build configuration files (configure.ac, CMakeLists.txt) for version macros like WOLFSSL_VERSION_HEXAffected if Version is hardcoded as 5.6.6 in build artifacts or the library binary reports this version
-
Verify ed25519 signing is in useSearch source code for calls to wc_ed25519_sign_msg, wc_ed25519_sign, or Ed25519Sign functions; inspect binary for symbols (e.g., `nm -D libwolfssl.so | grep ed25519_sign`)Affected if Code or binaries reference the vulnerable ed25519 signing functions and the WolfSSL version is 5.6.6
-
Check for memory isolation protectionsInspect system documentation or boot parameters for ECC memory, TRR (Target Row Refresh), or memory integrity features; examine hypervisor or cloud provider settings if applicableAffected if The system lacks hardware or software memory fault isolation, making Rowhammer-style fault injection feasible
A user is affected if they run WolfSSL version 5.6.6 and utilize the ed25519 signing functions (wc_ed25519_sign_msg) on a system without memory fault isolation protections.
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 to patched WolfSSL version; consider deploying systems with ECC memory or additional memory integrity controls to mitigate Rowhammer attacks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,024.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-2881 — 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-2024-2881 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