npm package report

Is sjcl safe?

1 known vulnerability, worst severity HIGH.

cvss
8.7

how bad it is if exploited, out of 10

epss
0.20%

chance of exploitation in the next 30 days

xyz score
3.9

CyberXYZ composite, out of 10

fig. 01 — GHSA-2w8x-224x-785m, the advisory selected below

// advisories

GHSA-2w8x-224x-785m

HIGHCVE-2026-4258

All versions of the package sjcl are vulnerable to Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature due to missing point-on-curve validation in sjcl.ecc.basicKey.publicKey(). An attacker can recover a victim's ECDH private key by sending crafted off-curve public keys and observing ECDH outputs. The dhJavaEc() function directly returns the raw x-coordinate of the scalar multiplication result (no ha

Affected
<= 1.0.8
Fixed in
1.0.9
Weakness
CWE-325
Published
2026-03-17
Source
github

GHSANVDMITREreferencereferencereferencereference

// dependencies

0 direct

Sign in for dependency paths and remediation

// ai model usage

Tracked for PyPI packages. HuggingFace models declare Python dependencies, so npm packages are not covered.

Checked 2026-09-22 at 01:44 UTC. The most recent advisory here was published 2026-03-17. Updated continuously from NVD, GHSA, OSV and CNA feeds.

Think a verdict here is wrong? Tell us — we respond within 2 business days.
Is sjcl safe? npm package security report | CyberXYZ