Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a distributed, open, and extensible naming system based on the Ethereum blockchain. According to the documentation, controllers are allowed to register new domains and extend the expiry of existing domains, but they cannot change the ownership or reduce the expiration time of existing domains. However, a preliminary analysis suggests that an attacker-controlled controller may be able to reduce the expiration time of existing domains due to an integer overflow in the renew function. The vulnerability resides @ensdomains/ens-contracts prior to version 0.0.22.
If successfully exploited, this vulnerability would enable attackers to force the expiration of any ENS record, ultimately allowing them to claim the affected domains for themselves. Currently, it would require a malicious DAO to exploit it. Nevertheless, any vulnerability present in the controllers could potentially render this issue exploitable in the future. An additional concern is the possibility of renewal discounts. Should ENS decide to implement a system that offers unlimited .eth domains for a fixed fee in the future, the vulnerability could become exploitable by any user due to the reduced attack cost.
Version 0.0.22 contains a patch for this issue. As long as registration cost remains linear or superlinear based on registration duration, or limited to a reasonable maximum (eg, 1 million years), this vulnerability could only be exploited by a malicious DAO. The interim workaround is thus to take no action.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.9): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.9 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.9 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation public PoC (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it