GHSA-9FVJ-XQR2-XWG8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-29 20:20 – Updated: 2025-09-01 20:05Impact
For optimizing the scalar multiplication algorithm in circuit for some curves, gnark uses fake-GLV algorithm in case the curve doesn't support true-GLV. For this to work, we need to compute the scalar decomposition using the Half GCD method in gnark-crypto. However, for some of the inputs the algorithm didn't converge quickly enough.
In case the prover accepts untrusted witness, it could lead to denial of service as the prover gets stuck in a very slowly converging loop.
Thanks to @feltroidprime for reporting the issue and proposing a fix.
Patches
The issue has been patched in gnark-crypto commit https://github.com/Consensys/gnark-crypto/commit/56600883e0e9f9b159e9c7000b94e76185ec3d0d. The dependency update is implemented in gnark commit https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/commit/68be6cede36e387ab760725beabd3c96cc94e6dc.
Workarounds
This update doesn't require recompiling the circuits as the issue is in the hint function. The users can update the gnark-crypto dependency to the fixed version.
References
- See bug report https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/issues/1483
- Fake GLV description https://ethresear.ch/t/fake-glv-you-dont-need-an-efficient-endomorphism-to-implement-glv-like-scalar-multiplication-in-snark-circuits/20394
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/consensys/gnark"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.12.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.13.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"0.12.0"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-58157"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-400"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-29T20:20:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-29T22:15:32Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nFor optimizing the scalar multiplication algorithm in circuit for some curves, gnark uses fake-GLV algorithm in case the curve doesn\u0027t support true-GLV. For this to work, we need to compute the scalar decomposition using the Half GCD method in gnark-crypto. However, for some of the inputs the algorithm didn\u0027t converge quickly enough.\n\nIn case the prover accepts untrusted witness, it could lead to denial of service as the prover gets stuck in a very slowly converging loop.\n\nThanks to @feltroidprime for reporting the issue and proposing a fix.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue has been patched in gnark-crypto commit https://github.com/Consensys/gnark-crypto/commit/56600883e0e9f9b159e9c7000b94e76185ec3d0d. The dependency update is implemented in gnark commit https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/commit/68be6cede36e387ab760725beabd3c96cc94e6dc.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThis update doesn\u0027t require recompiling the circuits as the issue is in the hint function. The users can update the gnark-crypto dependency to the fixed version.\n\n### References\n\n* See bug report https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/issues/1483\n* Fake GLV description https://ethresear.ch/t/fake-glv-you-dont-need-an-efficient-endomorphism-to-implement-glv-like-scalar-multiplication-in-snark-circuits/20394",
"id": "GHSA-9fvj-xqr2-xwg8",
"modified": "2025-09-01T20:05:35Z",
"published": "2025-08-29T20:20:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/security/advisories/GHSA-9fvj-xqr2-xwg8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58157"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/issues/1483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Consensys/gnark-crypto/commit/56600883e0e9f9b159e9c7000b94e76185ec3d0d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Consensys/gnark/commit/68be6cede36e387ab760725beabd3c96cc94e6dc"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Consensys/gnark"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "gnark affected by denial of service when computing scalar multiplication using fake-GLV algorithm"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.