Improper Signature VerificationWeakness · CWE-347

CVE-2026-24850

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-01-28
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
The ML-DSA crate is a Rust implementation of the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard (ML-DSA). Starting in version 0.0.4 and prior to version 0.1.0-rc.4, the ML-DSA signature verification implementation in the RustCrypto `ml-dsa` crate incorrectly accepts signatures with repeated (duplicate) hint indices. According to the ML-DSA specification (FIPS 204 / RFC 9881), hint indices within each polynomial must be **strictly increasing**. The current implementation uses a non-strict monotonic check (`<=` instead of `<`), allowing duplicate indices. This is a regression bug. The original implementation was correct, but a commit in version 0.0.4 inadvertently changed the strict `<` comparison to `<=`, introducing the vulnerability. Version 0.1.0-rc.4 fixes the issue.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-347

The application accepts signed data without properly verifying the signature, so an attacker can forge or tamper with content that the system is meant to trust — tokens, updates, licences. Everything built on that trust then becomes unreliable. Remediation is verifying every signature against the correct key and rejecting anything that does not validate.

General guidance for the improper signature verification class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

CVSS 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
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

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.

dbcve · scoped
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

ml-dsa version 0.1.0-rc.4 or later

  1. Locate the ml-dsa crate dependency in your project's Cargo.toml file
  2. Update the ml-dsa version requirement to 0.1.0-rc.4 or later (e.g., ml-dsa = "0.1.0-rc.4")
  3. Run `cargo update` to fetch the fixed version
  4. Run `cargo build` to recompile with the patched crate
  5. Verify signature verification now correctly rejects signatures with duplicate hint indices
Caveat Review the changelog for 0.1.0-rc.4 for any API changes between your current version and the upgrade target

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can apply and verify the patch for your build — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the patch applied

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-24850 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-24850 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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