Sliver from v1.5.x to v1.5.39 has an improper cryptographic implementation, which allows attackers to execute a man-in-the-middle attack via
Sliver from v1.5.x to v1.5.39 has an improper cryptographic implementation, which allows attackers to execute a man-in-the-middle attack via intercepted and crafted responses.
- Published
- Aug 28, 2023
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.6% · 46th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-327
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
32
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 32 / 40 · 8.1 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.6%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
Affected systems
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| bishopfox | sliver | cpe:2.3:a:bishopfox:sliver |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- bishopfox sliver1.5.0 and later · before 1.5.40
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/bishopfox/sliver | from 1.5.0 · before 1.5.40 | 1.5.40 |
Same product
bishopfox: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-25791Sliver has a DNS C2 OTP Bypass Allows Unauthenticated Session Flooding and Denial of Service30Monitor
- CVE-2024-41111BishopFox Sliver Authenticated Remote Code Execution28Monitor
- CVE-2026-102507Sliver 1.7.7 Denial of Service via PE Parser Slice Bounds in Operator RPC27Monitor
- CVE-2025-27090Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in sliver teamserver27Monitor
- CVE-2026-25760Website Path Traversal / Arbitrary File Read (Authenticated) in Sliver26Monitor
- CVE-2025-27093Sliver does not restricted traffic between Wireguard clients.25Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Go:github.com/bishopfox/sliver | 1.5.40 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-327 · Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic AlgorithmCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Encryption Brute ForcingCAPEC-20likelihood: Low · Low
- Creating a Rogue Certification Authority CertificateCAPEC-459likelihood: Medium · Very High
- Signature SpoofCAPEC-473
- Signature Spoofing by Improper ValidationCAPEC-475likelihood: Low · High
- Cryptanalysis of Cellular EncryptionCAPEC-608High
- Rooting SIM CardsCAPEC-614High
- CryptanalysisCAPEC-97likelihood: Low · Very High
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
- github.com/BishopFox/sliver/releases/tag/v1.5.40
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-8jxm-xp43-qh3q
- github.com/tangent65536/Slivjacker
- www.chtsecurity.com/news/04f41dcc-1851-463c-93bc-551323ad8091
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.