CVE-2021-43568: Ecdsa elixir Ecdsa-elixir Fails To Check Signatures, Vulnerability

CRITICAL
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-xx36-6rv4-gj8r
CVSS 9.8
CWE-347
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2021-43568 is a CRITICAL (CVSS 9.8) ecdsa-elixir fails to check signatures, vulnerability (CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature) affecting Ecdsa elixir libraries in the Hex ecosystem. The issue involves ecdsa-elixir fails to check signatures, vulnerable to message forging. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 1.0.1.

CVE-2021-43568 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2021-43568
GHSA Identifier GHSA-xx36-6rv4-gj8r
Severity CRITICAL
CVSS v3.1 Base Score 9.8
CWE Classification CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature
Affected Product Ecdsa elixir
Package Ecosystem Hex
Published Date
Last Updated

Security Impact

CVSS: 9.8

The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).

Attack Vector Network (AV:N)
Attack Complexity Low (AC:L)
Privileges Required None (PR:N)
User Interaction None (UI:N)
Scope Unchanged (S:U)
Confidentiality High (C:H)
Integrity High (I:H)
Availability High (A:H)

How to Fix CVE-2021-43568

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Ecdsa elixir dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

ecdsa-elixir fixed: 1.0.1
Upgrade ecdsa-elixir to 1.0.1
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

inspect dependencies for ecdsa-elixir

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your application is affected by CVE-2021-43568, inspect your project dependencies for Ecdsa elixir:

inspect dependencies for ecdsa-elixir

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Ecdsa elixir in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 1.0.1), your application is affected.

Note: Verify declared build manifests and deployed runtime container environments.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature, where the product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data. In Ecdsa elixir, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.

Source Advisory Statement

### Summary Stark Bank is a financial technology company that provides services to simplify and automate digital banking, by providing APIs to perform operations such as payments and transfers. In addition, Stark Bank maintains a number of cryptographic libraries to perform cryptographic signing and verification. These popular libraries are meant to be used to integrate with the Stark Bank ecosystem, but are also accessible on popular package manager platforms in order to be used by other projects. The node package manager reports around 16k weekly downloads for the [ecdsa-node](https://www.npmjs.com/package/starkbank-ecdsa ) implementation while the Python implementation boasts over [7.3M downloads in the last 90 days on PyPI](https://package.wiki/starkbank-ecdsa). A number of these libraries suffer from a vulnerability in the signature verification functions, allowing attackers to forge signatures for arbitrary messages which successfully verify with any public key. ### Impact An attacker can forge signatures on arbitrary messages that will verify for any public key. This may allow attackers to authenticate as any user within the Stark Bank platform, and bypass signature verification needed to perform operations on the platform, such as send payments and transfer funds. Additionally, the ability for attackers to forge signatures may impact other users and projects using these libraries in different and unforeseen ways. ### Details The (slightly simplified) ECDSA verification of a signature _**(r, s)**_ on a hashed message _**z**_ with public key _**Q**_ and curve order _**n**_ works as follows: The (slightly simplified) ECDSA verification of a signature _**(r, s)**_ on a hashed message _**z**_ with public key _**Q**_ and curve order _**n**_ works as follows: - Check that _**r**_ and _**s**_ are integers in the _**[1, n-1]**_ range, return Invalid if not. - Compute _**u<sub>1</sub> = zs<sup>-1</sup> mod n**_ and _**u<sub>2</sub> = rs<sup>-1</sup> mod n**_. - Compute the elliptic curve point _**(x, y) = u<sub>1</sub>G + u<sub>2</sub>Q**_, return Invalid if _**(x, y)**_ is the point at infinity. - Return Valid if _**r ≡ x mod n**_, Invalid otherwise. The ECDSA signature verification functions in the libraries listed above fail to perform the first check, ensuring that the r and s components of the signatures are in the correct range. Specifically, the libraries are not checking that the components of the signature are non-zero, which is an important check mandated by the standard, see X9.62:2005, Section 7.4.1/a: > 1. If _**r’**_ is not an integer in the interval _**[1, n-1]**_, then reject the signature. > 2. If _**s’**_ is not an integer in the interval _**[1, n-1]**_, then reject the signature. For example, consider the following excerpt of the verify function from the [ecdsa-python implementation](https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-python/blob/v2.0.0/ellipticcurve/ecdsa.py#L34-L41). ```python def verify(cls, message, signature, publicKey, hashfunc=sha256): byteMessage = hashfunc(toBytes(message)).digest() numberMessage = numberFromByteString(byteMessage) curve = publicKey.curve r = signature.r s = signature.s inv = Math.inv(s, curve.N) u1 = Math.multiply(curve.G, n=(numberMessage * inv) % curve.N, N=curve.N, A=curve.A, P=curve.P) u2 = Math.multiply(publicKey.point, n=(r * inv) % curve.N, N=curve.N, A=curve.A, P=curve.P) add = Math.add(u1, u2, A=curve.A, P=curve.P) modX = add.x % curve.N return r == modX ``` In that code snippet, the values `r` and `s` are extracted from the signature without any range check. An attacker supplying a signature equal to `(r, s) = (0, 0)` will not see their signature rejected. Proceeding with the verification, this function computes the inverse of the `s` component. Note that the `Math.inv()` function returns zero when supplied with a zero input (even though 0 does not admit an inverse). The code then computes the values `u1 = inv * numberMessage * G` and `u2 = inv * r * Q`, but since `inv` is zero, `u1` and `u2` will both be zero, i.e., the point at infinity, regardless of the value of numberMessage (the message hash, which we called _**z**_ above) and _**Q**_ (the public key). Subsequently, the implementation computes the intermediary curve point add by adding up the two previously computed points, which again results in the point at infinity. The final line checks that the r-component of the signature is equal to the x-coordinate of the curve point, essentially checking that `0 == 0` for all any message and any public key. Therefore, a signature `(r, s) = (0, 0)` is deemed valid by the code for any message, and under any public key. ### Recommendation Users of the different Stark Bank ECDSA libraries should update to the latest versions. Specifically, versions larger or at least equal to the following should be used. - ecdsa-python: v2.0.1 - ecdsa-java: v1.0.1 - ecdsa-dotnet: v1.3.2 - ecdsa-elixir v1.0.1 - ecdsa-node v1.1.3

CVE-2021-43568 Affected Ecdsa elixir Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
1.0.1
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
ecdsa-elixir
Hex
≥ 1.0.0
< 1.0.1
All 1 versions
1.0.0
1.0.1

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2021-43568?
CVE-2021-43568 is a security vulnerability in Ecdsa elixir involving ecdsa-elixir fails to check signatures, vulnerable to message forging under CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature.
Which Ecdsa elixir versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 1.0.1 across affected packages: ecdsa-elixir.
What version fixes CVE-2021-43568?
Upgrading to 1.0.1 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is ecdsa-elixir affected?
Yes, ecdsa-elixir is affected in releases prior to 1.0.1. Upgrade your dependency to 1.0.1 or later.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2021-43568?
CVE-2021-43568 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (CRITICAL) with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2021-43568?
CVE-2021-43568 is classified under CWE-347: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.).
How can I check Hex dependencies for CVE-2021-43568?
Run the dependency tree command: 'inspect dependencies for ecdsa-elixir'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-xx36-6rv4-gj8r",
  "modified" : "2023-09-27T21:49:47Z",
  "published" : "2022-05-24T19:20:12Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2021-43568" ],
  "summary" : "ecdsa-elixir fails to check signatures, vulnerable to message forging",
  "details" : "### Summary\nStark Bank is a financial technology company that provides services to simplify and automate digital banking, by providing APIs to perform operations such as payments and transfers. In addition, Stark Bank maintains a number of cryptographic libraries to perform cryptographic signing and verification. These popular libraries are meant to be used to integrate with the Stark Bank ecosystem, but are also accessible on popular package manager platforms in order to be used by other projects. The node package manager reports around 16k weekly downloads for the [ecdsa-node](https://www.npmjs.com/package/starkbank-ecdsa ) implementation while the Python implementation boasts over [7.3M downloads in the last 90 days on PyPI](https://package.wiki/starkbank-ecdsa). A number of these libraries suffer from a vulnerability in the signature verification functions, allowing attackers to forge signatures for arbitrary messages which successfully verify with any public key.\n\n### Impact\nAn attacker can forge signatures on arbitrary messages that will verify for any public key. This may allow attackers to authenticate as any user within the Stark Bank platform, and bypass signature verification needed to perform operations on the platform, such as send payments and transfer funds. Additionally, the ability for attackers to forge signatures may impact other users and projects using these libraries in different and unforeseen ways.\n\n### Details\nThe (slightly simplified) ECDSA verification of a signature _**(r, s)**_ on a hashed message _**z**_ with public key _**Q**_ and curve order _**n**_ works as follows:\n\nThe (slightly simplified) ECDSA verification of a signature _**(r, s)**_ on a hashed message _**z**_ with public key _**Q**_ and curve order _**n**_ works as follows:\n\n- Check that _**r**_ and _**s**_ are integers in the _**[1, n-1]**_ range, return Invalid if not.\n- Compute _**u<sub>1</sub> = zs<sup>-1</sup> mod n**_ and _**u<sub>2</sub> = rs<sup>-1</sup> mod n**_.\n- Compute the elliptic curve point _**(x, y) = u<sub>1</sub>G + u<sub>2</sub>Q**_, return Invalid if _**(x, y)**_ is the point at infinity.\n- Return Valid if _**r ≡ x mod n**_, Invalid otherwise.\n\nThe ECDSA signature verification functions in the libraries listed above fail to perform the first check, ensuring that the r and s components of the signatures are in the correct range. Specifically, the libraries are not checking that the components of the signature are non-zero, which is an important check mandated by the standard, see X9.62:2005, Section 7.4.1/a:\n\n> 1. If _**r’**_ is not an integer in the interval _**[1, n-1]**_, then reject the signature.\n> 2. If _**s’**_ is not an integer in the interval _**[1, n-1]**_, then reject the signature.\n\nFor example, consider the following excerpt of the verify function from the [ecdsa-python implementation](https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-python/blob/v2.0.0/ellipticcurve/ecdsa.py#L34-L41).\n\n```python\ndef verify(cls, message, signature, publicKey, hashfunc=sha256):\n    byteMessage = hashfunc(toBytes(message)).digest()\n    numberMessage = numberFromByteString(byteMessage)\n    curve = publicKey.curve\n    r = signature.r\n    s = signature.s\n    inv = Math.inv(s, curve.N)\n    u1 = Math.multiply(curve.G, n=(numberMessage * inv) % curve.N, N=curve.N, A=curve.A, P=curve.P)\n    u2 = Math.multiply(publicKey.point, n=(r * inv) % curve.N, N=curve.N, A=curve.A, P=curve.P)\n    add = Math.add(u1, u2, A=curve.A, P=curve.P)\n    modX = add.x % curve.N\n    return r == modX\n```\n\nIn that code snippet, the values `r` and `s` are extracted from the signature without any range check. An attacker supplying a signature equal to `(r, s) = (0, 0)` will not see their signature rejected. Proceeding with the verification, this function computes the inverse of the `s` component. Note that the `Math.inv()` function returns zero when supplied with a zero input (even though 0 does not admit an inverse). The code then computes the values `u1 = inv * numberMessage * G` and `u2 = inv * r * Q`, but since `inv` is zero, `u1` and `u2` will both be zero, i.e., the point at infinity, regardless of the value of numberMessage (the message hash, which we called _**z**_ above) and _**Q**_ (the public key). Subsequently, the implementation computes the intermediary curve point add by adding up the two previously computed points, which again results in the point at infinity. The final line checks that the r-component of the signature is equal to the x-coordinate of the curve point, essentially checking that `0 == 0` for all any message and any public key. Therefore, a signature `(r, s) = (0, 0)` is deemed valid by the code for any message, and under any public key.\n\n### Recommendation\nUsers of the different Stark Bank ECDSA libraries should update to the latest versions. Specifically, versions larger or at least equal to the following should be used.\n\n- ecdsa-python: v2.0.1\n- ecdsa-java: v1.0.1\n- ecdsa-dotnet: v1.3.2\n- ecdsa-elixir v1.0.1\n- ecdsa-node v1.1.3",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V3",
    "score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "Hex",
      "name" : "ecdsa-elixir"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "1.0.0"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "1.0.1"
      } ]
    } ],
    "versions" : [ "1.0.0" ]
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-43568"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-elixir/commit/4b960e26768bb698f449eb7686b5664936b70b61"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-elixir/commit/a5168f6d9cfbe0a0a62d92e2e9b1a97235d90343"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-elixir"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/starkbank/ecdsa-elixir/releases/tag/v1.0.1"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://research.nccgroup.com/2021/11/08/technical-advisory-arbitrary-signature-forgery-in-stark-bank-ecdsa-libraries"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-347" ],
    "severity" : "CRITICAL",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2022-07-01T17:15:25Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : "2021-11-09T22:15:00Z"
  }
}