NVD / CVE Program· CNA GitHub_M

CVE-2025-64186: Evervault Go SDK: Incomplete PCR Validation in Enclave Attestation for non-Evervault hosted Enclaves

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 26/100)

The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.14% (FIRST EPSS).
Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
Fixed version: evervault evervault-go 1.3.2.
Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 8.7, NVD 6.5.

Low priority for now. Upgrade to evervault evervault-go 1.3.2 or later.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

Evervault is a payment security solution. A vulnerability was identified in the `evervault-go` SDK’s attestation verification logic in versions of `evervault-go` prior to 1.3.2 that may allow incomplete documents to pass validation. This may cause the client to trust an enclave operator that does not meet expected integrity guarantees. The exploitability of this issue is limited in Evervault-hosted environments as an attacker would require the pre-requisite ability to serve requests from specific evervault domain names, following from our ACME challenge based TLS certificate acquisition pipeline. The vulnerability primarily affects applications which only check PCR8. Though the efficacy is also reduced for applications that check all PCR values, the impact is largely remediated by checking PCR 0, 1 and 2. The identified issue has been addressed in version 1.3.2 by validating attestation documents before storing in the cache, and replacing the naive equality checks with a new SatisfiedBy check. Those who useevervault-go to attest Enclaves that are hosted outside of Evervault environments and cannot upgrade have two possible workarounds available. Modify the application logic to fail verification if PCR8 is not explicitly present and non-empty and/or add custom pre-validation to reject documents that omit any required PCRs.

MediumCVSS 6.5 · v3.1—No exploit Fix available

Weak crypto

Published: Nov 12, 2025
Updated: Oct 18, 2026
EPSS: 0.1% · 3th percentile
CWE: CWE-347

Report tools

JSON

Action score

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS: 26 / 40 · 6.5 / 10
CISA KEV: 0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS: 0 / 30 · 0.1%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation: proof of concept
Automatable: no
Technical impact: total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD: 6.5
CNA · GitHub_M: 8.7; 2.2 point gap

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

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
No public exploit code on record
A fix has been released

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

Vendor	Product	CPE
evervault	evervault	cpe:2.3:a:evervault:evervault

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

evervault evervaultbefore 1.3.2

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

evervault evervault-go
- < 1.3.2affected

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/evervault/evervault-go	before 1.3.2	1.3.2

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
evervault evervault-go	1.3.2 · description	Vendor (CNA)
Go:github.com/evervault/evervault-go	1.3.2	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.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, 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.
A low-privileged account is enough.
No user action is required.
No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality: none
Integrity: high · data or configuration can be modified
Availability: none

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality impact: None
Integrity impact: High
Availability impact: None

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-347 · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

CVSS vector

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

nvd-primary

Root cause

The verifier takes the algorithm to verify with from the token’s own header. Untrusted data ends up deciding its own verification rule.

The bug in code

The whole CWE-347 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

1const claims = jwt.verify(token, publicKey);

Fixed

1const claims = jwt.verify(token, publicKey, {
2  algorithms: ["RS256"],
3  issuer: "https://id.example.com",
4  audience: "portal",
5});

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)

ATT&CK techniques

—

Change log

Fix✗ → ✓Sep 28, 2026, 10:44 PM UTC

For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →

References

github.com/evervault/evervault-go/commit/7c824d289bba11ec0bea46a338023f5b128bbb28

Show all references (1 more)

github.com/evervault/evervault-go/pull/48

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records