CVE-2025-10281VulnerabilityPublished 9 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-10281: BLSOPS bbot · Information Exposure

Affects BLSOPS bbotSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 9 Oct 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 2026-10-25.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
BLSOPS, LLC bbot	Affected =0.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should first audit their use of the bbot tool and specifically the git_clone module to identify any exposure to untrusted git URLs. Restricting or validating git URLs to trusted sources can prevent malicious input. Secrets such as GitHub API keys should be stored securely using dedicated secret management solutions rather than embedding them directly in code modules or configuration files. Implement network-level controls to monitor and block unexpected outbound connections from development tools to unknown servers. Educate developers and DevOps teams about the risks of interacting with untrusted repositories and the importance of verifying URLs before cloning. Employ monitoring and alerting on GitHub API key usage to detect anomalous activity promptly. Finally, maintain close communication with BLSOPS for updates and patches, and plan for rapid deployment once a fix becomes available.

Description

BBOT's git_clone module could be abused to disclose a GitHub API key to an attacker controlled server with a malicious formatted git URL.

Impact

For European organizations, the exposure of GitHub API keys can have significant consequences. Unauthorized actors gaining access to these keys may retrieve or manipulate source code repositories, potentially leading to intellectual property theft, insertion of malicious code, or disruption of development workflows. This risk is particularly acute for organizations relying heavily on GitHub for code hosting and continuous integration/deployment pipelines. The confidentiality breach could also facilitate lateral movement within an organization's infrastructure if the API keys grant access to other integrated services. Additionally, the reputational damage and compliance implications (e.g., GDPR concerns if personal data is involved) could be substantial. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction, social engineering or phishing campaigns targeting developers or DevOps personnel could be used to exploit it. The lack of patches increases the window of exposure, necessitating proactive defense measures.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

blog.blacklanternsecurity.com/p/bbot-security-advisory-gitdumper (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Oct 2025, 16:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats