This project might be open to known security vulnerabilities, which can be prevented by tightening the version range of affected dependencies. Find detailed information at the bottom.

Crate acme-rfc8555

Dependencies

(18 total, 5 outdated, 2 possibly insecure)

CrateRequiredLatestStatus
 base64^0.210.22.1out of date
 der^0.70.8.0out of date
 ecdsa^0.160.16.9up to date
 eyre ⚠️^0.60.6.12maybe insecure
 log^0.40.4.29up to date
 p256^0.130.13.2up to date
 parking_lot^0.120.12.5up to date
 pem-rfc7468^0.71.0.0out of date
 pkcs8^0.100.10.2up to date
 rand^0.80.10.0out of date
 reqwest^0.110.13.2out of date
 serde^11.0.228up to date
 serde_json^11.0.149up to date
 sha2^0.10.60.10.9up to date
 time ⚠️^0.30.3.47maybe insecure
 tokio^1.24.21.50.0up to date
 x509-cert^0.2.40.2.5up to date
 zeroize^11.8.2up to date

Security Vulnerabilities

eyre: Parts of Report are dropped as the wrong type during downcast

RUSTSEC-2024-0021

In affected versions, after a Report is constructed using wrap_err or wrap_err_with to attach a message of type D onto an error of type E, then using downcast to recover ownership of either the value of type D or the value of type E, one of two things can go wrong:

  • If downcasting to E, there remains a value of type D to be dropped. It is incorrectly "dropped" by running E's drop behavior, rather than D's. For example if D is &str and E is std::io::Error, there would be a call of std::io::Error::drop in which the reference received by the Drop impl does not refer to a valid value of type std::io::Error, but instead to &str.

  • If downcasting to D, there remains a value of type E to be dropped. When D and E do not happen to be the same size, E's drop behavior is incorrectly executed in the wrong location. The reference received by the Drop impl may point left or right of the real E value that is meant to be getting dropped.

In both cases, when the Report contains an error E that has nontrivial drop behavior, the most likely outcome is memory corruption.

When the Report contains an error E that has trivial drop behavior (for example a Utf8Error) but where D has nontrivial drop behavior (such as String), the most likely outcome is that downcasting to E would leak D.

time: Denial of Service via Stack Exhaustion

RUSTSEC-2026-0009

Impact

When user-provided input is provided to any type that parses with the RFC 2822 format, a denial of service attack via stack exhaustion is possible. The attack relies on formally deprecated and rarely-used features that are part of the RFC 2822 format used in a malicious manner. Ordinary, non-malicious input will never encounter this scenario.

Patches

A limit to the depth of recursion was added in v0.3.47. From this version, an error will be returned rather than exhausting the stack.

Workarounds

Limiting the length of user input is the simplest way to avoid stack exhaustion, as the amount of the stack consumed would be at most a factor of the length of the input.