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

GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww keylime

MEDIUMFix: keylime/keylime@9e5ac9f

GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.5) CWE-639 vulnerability in keylime. A fix is available for keylime — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Keylime registrar and (untrusted) Agent can be bypassed by an attacker

Also known asCVE-2023-38201PYSEC-2023-160
Published
Sep 6, 2023
Updated
Jul 8, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 18, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs41th percentile — riskier than 41% 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-f4r5-q63f-gcww 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 377,166 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

1 pkg affected
🐍keylime

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

Description

Impact

A security issue was found in the Keylime registrar code which allows an attacker to effectively bypass the challenge-response protocol used to verify that an agent has indeed access to an AIK which in indeed related to the EK.

When an agent starts up, it will contact a registrar and provide a public EK and public AIK, in addition to the EK Certificate. This registrar will then challenge the agent to decrypt a challenge encrypted with the EK.

When receiving the wrong "auth_tag" back from the agent during activation, the registrar answers with an error message that contains the expected correct "auth_tag" (an HMAC which is calculated within the registrar for checking). An attacker could simply record the correct expected "auth_tag" from the HTTP error message and perform the activate call again with the correct expected "auth_tag" for the agent.

The security issue allows an attacker to pass the challenge-response protocol during registration with (almost) arbitrary registration data. In particular, the attacker can provide a valid EK Certificate and EK, which passes verification by the tenant (or registrar), while using a compromised AIK, which is stored unprotected outside the TPM and is unrelated to former two. The attacker then deliberately fails the initial activation call to get to know the correct "auth_tag" and then provides it in a subsequent activation call. This results in an agent which is (incorrectly) registered with a valid EK Certificate, but with a compromised/unrelated AIK.

Patches

Users should upgrade to release 7.5.0

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIkeylimeall versions7.5.0pip install --upgrade 'keylime==7.5.0'

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

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

  2. Fix

    Update keylime to 7.5.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  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-f4r5-q63f-gcww can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww. 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
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9keylime-0:6.5.2-6.el9_2RHSA-2023:5080

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact A security issue was found in the Keylime `registrar` code which allows an attacker to effectively bypass the challenge-response protocol used to verify that an `agent` has indeed access to an AIK which in indeed related to the EK. When an `agent` starts up, it will contact a `registrar` and provide a public EK and public AIK, in addition to the EK Certificate. This `registrar` will then challenge the `agent` to decrypt a challenge encrypted with the EK. When receiving the wrong "auth_tag" back from the `agent` during activation, the `registrar` answers with an error message tha
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

GHSA-f4r5-q63f-gcww: keylime (Medium 6.5) | O3 Security