# CVE-2025-52884: risc0-ethereum-contracts allows invalid commitment with digest value of zero to be accepted by Steel.validateCommitment > Attackers can bypass commitment validation in Steel library by using a zero digest, potentially compromising zkVM proof soundness if not paired with proper verification. - **Severity:** Low 1.7 (`CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U`) - **Exploited in the wild:** Not known - **Login needed:** Not needed - **Attackable:** Over the internet - **Victim action needed:** Not needed - **Fix available:** Yes - **Published:** 24 Jun 2025 - **Updated:** 24 Jun 2025 - **Also known as:** GHSA-gjv3-89hh-9xq2 ## What is CVE-2025-52884? CVE-2025-52884 is a low-severity vulnerability in risc0-ethereum, published on 24 Jun 2025. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim. ### Official description RISC Zero is a zero-knowledge verifiable general computing platform, with Ethereum integration. The risc0-ethereum repository contains Solidity verifier contracts, Steel EVM view call library, and supporting code. Prior to versions 2.1.1 and 2.2.0, the `Steel.validateCommitment` Solidity library function will return `true` for a crafted commitment with a digest value of zero. This violates the semantics of `validateCommitment`, as this does not commitment to a block that is in the current chain. Because the digest is zero, it does not correspond to any block and there exist no known openings. As a result, this commitment will never be produced by a correct zkVM guest using Steel and leveraging this bug to compromise the soundness of a program using Steel would require a separate bug or misuse of the Steel library, which is expected to be used to validate the root of state opening proofs. A fix has been released as part of `risc0-ethereum` 2.1.1 and 2.2.0. Users for the `Steel` Solidity library versions 2.1.0 or earlier should ensure they are using `Steel.validateCommitment` in tandem with zkVM proof verification of a Steel program, as shown in the ERC-20 counter example, and documentation. This is the correct usage of Steel, and users following this pattern are not at risk, and do not need to take action. Users not verifying a zkVM proof of a Steel program should update their application to do so, as this is incorrect usage of Steel. Weakness: CWE-159 (Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements) ## Which versions are affected by CVE-2025-52884? 2 open source packages ship an affected version, including risc0-ethereum-contracts. | Package | Ecosystem | Affected | Fixed in | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `risc0-ethereum-contracts` | crates.io | All versions | 2.1.1 | | `risc0-ethereum-contracts` | crates.io | All versions | 2.1.1 | ## How do I fix CVE-2025-52884? Upgrade risc0-ethereum-contracts to 2.1.1 or later. ## Is CVE-2025-52884 being exploited? It is not confirmed as exploited in the wild, but public exploit code for CVE-2025-52884 exists. ## Fix prompt for AI coding agents ```text Check this codebase for CVE-2025-52884 and fix it if it is affected. What it is: CVE-2025-52884 is a low-severity vulnerability in risc0-ethereum, published on 24 Jun 2025. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim. Exploitation: It is not confirmed as exploited in the wild, but public exploit code for CVE-2025-52884 exists. Affected packages and fixed versions: - risc0-ethereum-contracts (crates.io): affected all versions; fixed in 2.1.1 - risc0-ethereum-contracts (crates.io): affected all versions; fixed in 2.1.1 Task: 1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies. 2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it. 3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead. 4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why. 5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing. Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-52884/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-52884/index.md) ``` ## Sources - CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-52884 - NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-52884 - OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2025-52884 --- From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-52884/ Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.