CVE-2025-0736VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jan 2025Updated 11 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-0736: Sensitive Data in Logs

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Jan 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-0736, organizations should: 1) Audit and sanitize all logging configurations in Infinispan and JGroups setups to ensure sensitive information is not logged. 2) Implement strict access controls on log files, restricting access only to authorized personnel and processes. 3) Use log management solutions that support masking or redaction of sensitive data before storage. 4) Monitor logs for inadvertent exposure of credentials or configuration details and respond promptly to any findings. 5) Apply the principle of least privilege to limit local user access, reducing the risk of exploitation. 6) Stay alert for official patches or updates from Infinispan or Red Hat and apply them promptly once available. 7) Consider isolating or encrypting logs to protect sensitive information at rest. 8) Conduct regular security reviews and penetration testing focusing on logging practices and sensitive data exposure. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on log sanitization, access control, and proactive monitoring specific to the affected components.

Description

A flaw was found in Infinispan, when using JGroups with JDBC_PING. This issue occurs when an application inadvertently exposes sensitive information, such as configuration details or credentials, through logging mechanisms. This exposure can lead to unauthorized access and exploitation by malicious actors.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-0736 is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information through log files. This can compromise confidentiality by exposing credentials or configuration details that attackers can leverage to escalate privileges, move laterally within networks, or gain unauthorized access to systems. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the exposure of sensitive data can lead to more severe downstream attacks. Organizations relying on Infinispan with JGroups and JDBC_PING in their infrastructure, especially those handling sensitive or regulated data, face increased risk of data breaches. The requirement for local access with low privileges limits remote exploitation but insider threats or attackers who have gained initial footholds could exploit this vulnerability. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the presence of sensitive data in logs is a persistent security concern that can be leveraged in targeted attacks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…