CVE-2024-31497

MEDIUM
5.9
CVSS Score
Published: April 15, 2024 at 12:00 AM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 07:28 AM UTC
6 products affected across 6 vendorsFedoraPuTTYWinscp

Using N/A by N/A?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect N/A - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.9
Exploit prediction
EPSS 6%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

In PuTTY 0.68 through 0.80 before 0.81, biased ECDSA nonce generation allows an attacker to recover a user's NIST P-521 secret key via a quick attack in approximately 60 signatures. This is especially important in a scenario where an adversary is able to read messages signed by PuTTY or Pageant. The required set of signed messages may be publicly readable because they are stored in a public Git service that supports use of SSH for commit signing, and the signatures were made by Pageant through an agent-forwarding mechanism. In other words, an adversary may already have enough signature information to compromise a victim's private key, even if there is no further use of vulnerable PuTTY versions. After a key compromise, an adversary may be able to conduct supply-chain attacks on software maintained in Git. A second, independent scenario is that the adversary is an operator of an SSH server to which the victim authenticates (for remote login or file copy), even though this server is not fully trusted by the victim, and the victim uses the same private key for SSH connections to other services operated by other entities. Here, the rogue server operator (who would otherwise have no way to determine the victim's private key) can derive the victim's private key, and then use it for unauthorized access to those other services. If the other services include Git services, then again it may be possible to conduct supply-chain attacks on software maintained in Git. This also affects, for example, FileZilla before 3.67.0, WinSCP before 6.3.3, TortoiseGit before 2.15.0.1, and TortoiseSVN through 1.14.6.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v < 3.67.0
Affected range stops below 3.67.0, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
0.68 ≤ v < 0.810.68
Affected range stops below 0.81, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
v < 1.14.6
Affected range stops below 1.14.6, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
v < 2.15.0.1
Affected range stops below 2.15.0.1, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
v < 6.3.3
Affected range stops below 6.3.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

5.9MEDIUMCISA-ADP
Attack Vector
NETWORK
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
NONE
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
NONE
Availability
NONE
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-338

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card