VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jan 2025Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-0754: Log Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 26 Oct 2026.

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-2025-0754, organizations should first apply any patches or updates released by Red Hat or the OpenShift Service Mesh maintainers addressing this issue. In the absence of immediate patches, administrators can implement strict input validation and sanitization at ingress points to filter or normalize the x-forwarded-for header before it reaches Envoy. Deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or API gateways that sanitize headers can reduce the risk of injection. Monitoring logs for unusual or malformed entries can help detect exploitation attempts early. Restricting privileges to only trusted users and limiting network access to the service mesh control plane reduces the attack surface. Additionally, configuring log viewers and management tools to safely handle and escape log content can prevent reflected XSS attacks. Regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on logging and header injection vectors are recommended to identify residual risks. Finally, educating security teams about this vulnerability ensures prompt detection and response to suspicious log anomalies.

Description

The vulnerability was found in OpenShift Service Mesh 2.6.3 and 2.5.6. This issue occurs due to improper sanitization of HTTP headers by Envoy, particularly the x-forwarded-for header. This lack of sanitization can allow attackers to inject malicious payloads into service mesh logs, leading to log injection and spoofing attacks. Such injections can mislead logging mechanisms, enabling attackers to manipulate log entries or execute reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-0754 is on the integrity of log data within environments using the affected OpenShift Service Mesh versions. Log injection and spoofing can mislead security teams by hiding malicious activities or creating false indicators, complicating incident response and forensic investigations. The potential for reflected XSS attacks through log viewing interfaces adds a secondary risk of client-side compromise for administrators or users accessing logs via web consoles. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the undermining of log trustworthiness can have cascading effects on organizational security posture and compliance with auditing requirements. Organizations relying heavily on OpenShift Service Mesh for microservices communication and observability may face increased risk of stealthy attacks and delayed detection. The vulnerability could be exploited by insiders or external attackers with network access and some privileges, making it a concern for enterprises with sensitive workloads in hybrid or cloud environments.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…