VAITP Dataset

← Back to the dataset

CVE-2025-29779

Ineffective fault injection protection in Feldman's VSS allows secret extraction.

  • CVSS 5.4
  • CWE-1240
  • Design Defects
  • Local

Post-Quantum Secure Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing provides a Python implementation of Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing (VSS) scheme. In versions 0.7.6b0 and prior, the `secure_redundant_execution` function in feldman_vss.py attempts to mitigate fault injection attacks by executing a function multiple times and comparing results. However, several critical weaknesses exist. Python's execution environment cannot guarantee true isolation between redundant executions, the constant-time comparison implementation in Python is subject to timing variations, the randomized execution order and timing provide insufficient protection against sophisticated fault attacks, and the error handling may leak timing information about partial execution results. These limitations make the protection ineffective against targeted fault injection attacks, especially from attackers with physical access to the hardware. A successful fault injection attack could allow an attacker to bypass the redundancy check mechanisms, extract secret polynomial coefficients during share generation or verification, force the acceptance of invalid shares during verification, and/or manipulate the commitment verification process to accept fraudulent commitments. This undermines the core security guarantees of the Verifiable Secret Sharing scheme. As of time of publication, no patched versions of Post-Quantum Secure Feldman's Verifiable Secret Sharing exist, but other mitigations are available. Long-term remediation requires reimplementing the security-critical functions in a lower-level language like Rust. Short-term mitigations include deploying the software in environments with physical security controls, increasing the redundancy count (from 5 to a higher number) by modifying the source code, adding external verification of cryptographic operations when possible, considering using hardware security modules (HSMs) for key operations.

CVSS base score
5.4
Published
2025-03-14
OWASP
A03 Injection
Orthogonal defect classification
Algorithm
Code defect classification
Incorrect Functionality
Category
Design Defects
Subcategory
Cryptographic Implementation Error
Accessibility scope
Local
Impact
Data Theft
Affected component
Python

Solution

No patch available. Mitigate with physical security, increased redundancy, external verification, or HSMs.

Vulnerable code sample

import secrets
import hashlib

# WARNING: This code demonstrates a vulnerability (CVE-2025-29779)
# and should NOT be used in production. It is for educational purposes only.

class VSS:
    def __init__(self, t, n, p, g):
        """
        t: threshold
        n: number of shares
        p: large prime
        g: generator
        """
        self.t = t
        self.n = n
        self.p = p
        self.g = g

    def generate_polynomial(self):
        """Generates random polynomial coefficients."""
        coeffs = [secrets.randbelow(self.p) for _ in range(self.t)]
        return coeffs

    def evaluate_polynomial(self, x, coeffs):
        """Evaluates the polynomial at a given point x."""
        y = 0
        for i, coeff in enumerate(coeffs):
            y = (y + coeff * pow(x, i, self.p)) % self.p
        return y

    def generate_shares(self, secret):
        """Generates shares of the secret."""
        coeffs = [secret] + self.generate_polynomial()[1:] #Secret is the first coefficient
        shares = []
        for i in range(1, self.n + 1):
            x = i
            y = self.evaluate_polynomial(x, coeffs)
            shares.append((x, y))
        return shares, coeffs

    def verify_share(self, share, commitments):
        """Verifies a single share against the commitments."""
        x, y = share
        commitment_check = 0
        for i, commitment in enumerate(commitments):
            commitment_check = (commitment_check + commitment * pow(x, i, self.p)) % self.p

        expected_commitment = pow(self.g, y, self.p)
        return commitment_check == expected_commitment

    def generate_commitments(self, coeffs):
        """Generates commitments to the polynomial coefficients."""
        commitments = []
        for coeff in coeffs:
            commitments.append(pow(self.g, coeff, self.p))
        return commitments

    def reconstruct_secret(self, shares):
        """Reconstructs the secret from a subset of shares."""
        if len(shares) < self.t:
            raise ValueError("Not enough shares to reconstruct the secret.")

        x_values = [share[0] for share in shares]
        y_values = [share[1] for share in shares]

        secret = 0
        for i in range(len(shares)):
            numerator = 1
            denominator = 1
            for j in range(len(shares)):
                if i != j:
                    numerator = (numerator * (-x_values[j])) % self.p
                    denominator = (denominator * (x_values[i] - x_values[j])) % self.p

            # Ensure denominator is invertible (not zero)
            if denominator == 0:
                raise ValueError("Shares are not distinct.")

            lagrange_basis = (numerator * pow(denominator, self.p - 2, self.p)) % self.p # Fermat's Little Theorem

            secret = (secret + y_values[i] * lagrange_basis) % self.p

        return secret

    def secure_redundant_execution(self, func, *args): # Vulnerable function
        """
        Executes a function multiple times and compares results to mitigate fault injection attacks.

        This function is vulnerable to CVE-2025-29779.
        """
        num_executions = 5
        results = []
        for _ in range(num_executions):
            results.append(func(*args))

        # Constant-time comparison (attempt)
        first_result = results[0]
        for result in results[1:]:
            if not self.constant_time_compare(first_result, result):
                raise ValueError("Inconsistent execution results detected!")
        return first_result

    def constant_time_compare(self, val1, val2): #Vulnerable
        """
        Attempts to compare two values in constant time to prevent timing attacks.

        This function is vulnerable to CVE-2025-29779 due to Python's lack of true isolation.
        """
        if isinstance(val1, bytes) and isinstance(val2, bytes):
            if len(val1) != len(val2):
                return False
            result = 0
            for x, y in zip(val1, val2):
                result |= x ^ y
            return result == 0
        else:
            # In real code, constant time comparison would be implemented at the bit level
            # Python integer comparison is not constant time
            return val1 == val2

# Example usage demonstrating potential vulnerability

if __name__ == '__main__':
    # Example parameters (use a large prime for real applications)
    t = 3  # Threshold
    n = 5  # Number of shares
    p = 101  # Small prime for demonstration purposes
    g = 2  # Generator

    vss = VSS(t, n, p, g)
    secret = 42
    shares, coeffs = vss.secure_redundant_execution(vss.generate_shares, secret)  #Applying Redundant Execution
    commitments = vss.secure_redundant_execution(vss.generate_commitments, coeffs)  #Applying Redundant Execution


    # Verify shares
    valid_shares = []
    for share in shares:
        is_valid = vss.secure_redundant_execution(vss.verify_share, share, commitments)  #Applying Redundant Execution
        if is_valid:
            valid_shares.append(share)
        else:
            print(f"Share {share} is invalid.")

    # Reconstruct secret from a subset of valid shares
    try:
        reconstruction_shares = valid_shares[:t]  #Use t shares for reconstruction
        reconstructed_secret = vss.secure_redundant_execution(vss.reconstruct_secret, reconstruction_shares)  #Applying Redundant Execution
        print(f"Reconstructed secret: {reconstructed_secret}")

        if reconstructed_secret == secret:
            print("Secret successfully reconstructed!")
        else:
            print("Secret reconstruction failed.")

    except ValueError as e:
        print(f"Error during secret reconstruction: {e}")

Patched code sample

import os
import hashlib

def secure_redundant_execution(func, *args, redundancy=5):
    """
    Simulates a vulnerable redundant execution, highlighting the weaknesses.
    This is NOT a secure implementation and is for demonstration purposes only.
    """
    results = []
    errors = []

    for _ in range(redundancy):
        try:
            result = func(*args)
            results.append(result)
            errors.append(None)  # No error
        except Exception as e:
            results.append(None)
            errors.append(e) # capture the error

    # Vulnerable comparison (naive comparison)
    first_result = results[0]
    for i in range(1, redundancy):
        if errors[i] is not None or results[i] != first_result:
            #Potential timing information leak. Could show which run caused the issue
            print(f"Redundant execution inconsistency detected in run {i+1}")
            raise Exception("Redundant execution inconsistency")

    return first_result

def generate_secret(length=32):
    """Generates a random secret."""
    return os.urandom(length)

def hash_secret(secret):
    """Hashes a secret (simulates a simple cryptographic operation)."""
    hasher = hashlib.sha256()
    hasher.update(secret)
    return hasher.digest()

def potentially_vulnerable_function(secret):
    """
    Simulates a function that might be subject to fault injection.
    This is a placeholder and doesn't actually inject faults.
    The vulnerability lies in the 'secure_redundant_execution' call itself.
    """
    # Simulate some computation that could be targeted
    intermediate_result = hash_secret(secret)
    # simulate a potential failure point
    if os.urandom(1)[0] < 10: #Simulate a ~ 4% chance of error
      raise Exception("Simulated Fault Injection")
    return intermediate_result

# Example usage (demonstrates the vulnerable pattern)
# This code will highlight the problematic pattern.
# It is crucial to understand that this highlights a vulnerability, not a fix.
# The only true fix is re-implementation in a more secure language and environment, or HSM use.
try:
    secret = generate_secret()
    final_result = secure_redundant_execution(potentially_vulnerable_function, secret)
    print("Result:", final_result.hex())
except Exception as e:
    print("Error during execution:", e)


# **Explanation of Vulnerabilities and Why This Code is a *BAD* Example of a Fix**

# 1. **Python's Lack of Isolation:** Python's execution model doesn't provide true isolation between the redundant executions. Memory is shared, the interpreter state is shared, etc.  A fault injected into one execution can easily affect the others.
# 2. **Timing Attacks:** Even if you try to use constant-time comparison in Python, the Python interpreter itself introduces timing variations. Garbage collection, context switching, and other factors make precise timing control impossible.
# 3. **Insufficient Fault Protection:** Simple randomization of execution order doesn't protect against sophisticated fault injection.  An attacker with physical access and control over the hardware can precisely time and target their attacks.
# 4. **Error Handling:**  The original (and this example's) error handling could leak information.  Knowing *which* execution failed can provide an attacker with valuable information about the internal state.

# **Why a True Fix is Difficult in Python**

# * **Fundamentally, the problem is the environment.** Python isn't designed for high-security, fault-tolerant operations where physical attacks are a concern.

# **How to Properly Address the Vulnerability (Summary from CVE description)**

# 1. **Re-implementation in a Lower-Level Language (Rust, C/C++):**  This allows for much tighter control over memory, execution timing, and the ability to implement truly constant-time operations. Rust is often preferred because of its memory safety features.
# 2. **Hardware Security Modules (HSMs):** Offload the security-critical operations to a dedicated HSM. HSMs are designed to resist physical attacks and provide a secure environment for key storage and cryptographic operations.
# 3. **Physical Security Controls:**  Deploy the software in a physically secure environment to reduce the risk of physical attacks.
# 4. **Increase Redundancy:** As a *temporary* measure, increase the `redundancy` count, but recognize that this only makes attacks more difficult, not impossible.
# 5. **External Verification:** If possible, add external verification of the cryptographic operations. For example, if the VSS scheme is used for key distribution, have a separate, independent system verify the correctness of the distributed keys.

# The `secure_redundant_execution` function in the original code is fundamentally flawed.  It *cannot* provide meaningful protection against fault injection attacks in the Python environment.

Payload

# This is a conceptual example and likely needs significant adaptation
# based on the specific hardware and fault injection capabilities.
# It is not a complete, executable payload.

# Example: Targeting the polynomial coefficient extraction during share generation
# via fault injection to skip the redundancy check.

# Assumes knowledge of the target function's memory address and structure.

# Payload Idea: Inject a fault to skip the comparison check if the first execution fails,
# but force a return of the partially computed, potentially flawed, polynomial.

# The specifics of the fault injection depend entirely on the hardware.
# This is a symbolic representation.

def hypothetical_fault_injection_payload(target_address_of_comparison, faulty_return_value):
    """
    This function symbolizes the fault injection process.
    In a real attack, it would involve low-level code to manipulate the hardware.

    Args:
        target_address_of_comparison: Memory address of the comparison instruction
                                     in `secure_redundant_execution`.
        faulty_return_value: Value to force the function to return after
                             the first (faulty) execution.  This would be
                             a manipulated version of the polynomial.

    Returns:
        None (this is a symbolic representation).
    """

    # Placeholder for actual fault injection mechanism (e.g., voltage glitch, clock manipulation)
    # This would need to be implemented using hardware-specific tools.
    inject_fault(target_address_of_comparison, "skip_instruction")  # Example: Skip the comparison instruction

    # Also, force the return value from the function
    overwrite_memory(target_address_of_comparison + offset_to_return_value, faulty_return_value)

    print(f"Fault injected at {target_address_of_comparison}. Forcing return of faulty polynomial.")


# Example usage (highly simplified):
# Assume we have determined the target address and desired return value through reverse engineering.

# target_address = 0x12345678  # Replace with actual address of the comparison
# faulty_polynomial = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] # A manipulated version of the polynomial
# hypothetical_fault_injection_payload(target_address, faulty_polynomial)

# Another example: Targeting the share verification process

#  This attempts to manipulate the commitment verification process by skipping the verification.
# target_verification_address = 0x9ABCDEF0  # Replace with address of commitment verification
# inject_fault(target_verification_address, "force_true") # force the verification to be 'true' regardless of the input

Cite this entry

@misc{vaitp:cve202529779,
  title        = {{Ineffective fault injection protection in Feldman's VSS allows secret extraction.
}},
  author       = {Bogaerts, Fr\'ed\'eric and Ivaki, Naghmeh and Fonseca, Jos\'e},
  year         = {2025},
  note         = {VAITP Python Vulnerability Dataset, entry CVE-2025-29779},
  howpublished = {\url{https://netpack.pt/vaitp/vulnerability/CVE-2025-29779/}}
}
Introducing the "VAITP dataset": a specialized repository of Python vulnerabilities and patches, meticulously compiled for the use of the security research community. As Python's prominence grows, understanding and addressing potential security vulnerabilities become crucial. Crafted by and for the cybersecurity community, this dataset offers a valuable resource for researchers, analysts, and developers to analyze and mitigate the security risks associated with Python. Through the comprehensive exploration of vulnerabilities and corresponding patches, the VAITP dataset fosters a safer and more resilient Python ecosystem, encouraging collaborative advancements in programming security.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Sun Tzu – “The Art of War”

:: Shaping the future through research and ingenuity ::