Focus on evervault vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 15 Feb 2026, 23:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with evervault. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total evervault CVEs: 1
Earliest CVE date: 12 Nov 2025, 21:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 12 Nov 2025, 21:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2025-64186
30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 1
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%
Average CVSS: 0.0
Max CVSS: 0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 1 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 0 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for evervault, sorted by severity first and recency.
Evervault is a payment security solution. A vulnerability was identified in the `evervault-go` SDK’s attestation verification logic in versions of `evervault-go` prior to 1.3.2 that may allow incomplete documents to pass validation. This may cause the client to trust an enclave operator that does not meet expected integrity guarantees. The exploitability of this issue is limited in Evervault-hosted environments as an attacker would require the pre-requisite ability to serve requests from specific evervault domain names, following from our ACME challenge based TLS certificate acquisition pipeline. The vulnerability primarily affects applications which only check PCR8. Though the efficacy is also reduced for applications that check all PCR values, the impact is largely remediated by checking PCR 0, 1 and 2. The identified issue has been addressed in version 1.3.2 by validating attestation documents before storing in the cache, and replacing the naive equality checks with a new SatisfiedBy check. Those who useevervault-go to attest Enclaves that are hosted outside of Evervault environments and cannot upgrade have two possible workarounds available. Modify the application logic to fail verification if PCR8 is not explicitly present and non-empty and/or add custom pre-validation to reject documents that omit any required PCRs.