Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹
🐹 Go
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc cosign

MEDIUMFix: sigstore/cosign@629f5f8

GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.2) CWE-770 vulnerability in github.com/sigstore/cosign. A fix is available for github.com/sigstore/cosign — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Cosign malicious attachments can cause system-wide denial of service

Also known asBIT-cosign-2024-29902CVE-2024-29902GO-2024-2718
Published
Apr 11, 2024
Updated
Sep 10, 2026
Affected
2 pkgs
Patched
1 / 2
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 22, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

Proof-of-concept exploit code exists

  • CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.7%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs50th percentile — riskier than 50% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 378,156 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

2 pkgs affected
🐹github.com/sigstore/cosign🐹github.com/sigstore/cosign/v2

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

A remote image with a malicious attachment can cause denial of service of the host machine running Cosign. This can impact other services on the machine that rely on having memory available such as a Redis database which can result in data loss. It can also impact the availability of other services on the machine that will not be available for the duration of the machine denial.

Details

The root cause of this issue is that Cosign reads the attachment from a remote image entirely into memory without checking the size of the attachment first. As such, a large attachment can make Cosign read a large attachment into memory; If the attachments size is larger than the machine has memory available, the machine will be denied of service. The Go runtime will make a SIGKILL after a few seconds of system-wide denial.

The root cause is that Cosign reads the contents of the attachments entirely into memory on line 238 below:

https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/blob/9bc3ee309bf35d2f6e17f5d23f231a3d8bf580bc/pkg/oci/remote/remote.go#L228-L239

...and prior to that, neither Cosign nor go-containerregistry checks the size of the attachment and enforces a max cap. In the case of a remote layer of f *attached, go-containerregistry will invoke this API:

https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry/blob/a0658aa1d0cc7a7f1bcc4a3af9155335b6943f40/pkg/v1/remote/layer.go#L36-L40

func (rl *remoteLayer) Compressed() (io.ReadCloser, error) {
	// We don't want to log binary layers -- this can break terminals.
	ctx := redact.NewContext(rl.ctx, "omitting binary blobs from logs")
	return rl.fetcher.fetchBlob(ctx, verify.SizeUnknown, rl.digest)
}

Notice that the second argument to rl.fetcher.fetchBlob is verify.SizeUnknown which results in not using the io.LimitReader in verify.ReadCloser: https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry/blob/a0658aa1d0cc7a7f1bcc4a3af9155335b6943f40/internal/verify/verify.go#L82-L100

func ReadCloser(r io.ReadCloser, size int64, h v1.Hash) (io.ReadCloser, error) {
	w, err := v1.Hasher(h.Algorithm)
	if err != nil {
		return nil, err
	}
	r2 := io.TeeReader(r, w) // pass all writes to the hasher.
	if size != SizeUnknown {
		r2 = io.LimitReader(r2, size) // if we know the size, limit to that size.
	}
	return &and.ReadCloser{
		Reader: &verifyReader{
			inner:    r2,
			hasher:   w,
			expected: h,
			wantSize: size,
		},
		CloseFunc: r.Close,
	}, nil
}

Impact

This issue can allow a supply-chain escalation from a compromised registry to the Cosign user: If an attacher has compromised a registry or the account of an image vendor, they can include a malicious attachment and hurt the image consumer.

Remediation

Update to the latest version of Cosign, which limits the number of attachments. An environment variable can override this value.

Affected Packages

2 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/sigstore/cosignall versionsNo fix
🐹Gogithub.com/sigstore/cosign/v2all versions2.2.4go get github.com/sigstore/cosign/v2@v2.2.4

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/sigstore/cosign, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    No patched version of github.com/sigstore/cosign has shipped for GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red HatModerate
ProductFixed inAdvisory
OpenShift-Pipelines-1.15-RHEL-8openshift-pipelines-client-0:1.15.0-11496.el8RHEA-2024:4022
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.5advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-central-db-rhel8:4.5.0-2RHSA-2024:4836

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary A remote image with a malicious attachment can cause denial of service of the host machine running Cosign. This can impact other services on the machine that rely on having memory available such as a Redis database which can result in data loss. It can also impact the availability of other services on the machine that will not be available for the duration of the machine denial. ### Details The root cause of this issue is that Cosign reads the attachment from a remote image entirely into memory without checking the size of the attachment first. As such, a large attachment can make
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

GHSA-88jx-383q-w4qc: cosign (Medium 4.2) | O3 Security