VulnerabilityPublished 25 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-12816: Digital Bazaar node-forge · Interpretation Conflict

Affects Digital Bazaar node-forgeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 25 Nov 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
npmnode-forge`pkg:npm/node-forge`Other threats	Affected <=1.3.1	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation involves auditing all applications and services for usage of node-forge versions 1.3.1 or earlier and planning prompt upgrades to patched versions once released by Digital Bazaar. In the absence of an official patch, organizations should implement strict ASN.1 input validation at application boundaries, employing additional cryptographic verification layers independent of node-forge's parsing logic. Employing defense-in-depth strategies such as certificate pinning, multi-factor authentication, and anomaly detection for cryptographic operations can reduce exploitation impact. Security teams should monitor threat intelligence feeds for emerging exploit code and apply virtual patching via web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block malformed ASN.1 payloads. Conducting thorough code reviews and penetration testing focused on ASN.1 handling and cryptographic verification processes is recommended. Finally, organizations should engage with their software supply chain partners to ensure coordinated vulnerability management and timely patch deployment.

Description

An interpretation-conflict (CWE-436) vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and earlier enables unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures to desynchronize schema validations, yielding a semantic divergence that may bypass downstream cryptographic verifications and security decisions.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability threatens the integrity of cryptographic operations in applications using node-forge, potentially allowing attackers to bypass security checks such as certificate validation, digital signatures, or encrypted data verification. This can lead to unauthorized access, data tampering, or man-in-the-middle attacks, undermining trust in secure communications and data protection mechanisms. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure that rely heavily on cryptographic assurances are particularly at risk. The vulnerability's remote exploitability and lack of authentication requirements increase the likelihood of widespread attacks once exploit code becomes available. Additionally, organizations using node-forge in client-side or server-side JavaScript environments may face compliance risks under GDPR and other data protection regulations if cryptographic integrity is compromised. The semantic divergence could also impact software supply chains and third-party integrations that depend on node-forge, amplifying the threat's reach across European digital ecosystems.

CWE-436Interpretation Conflict (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
HTTP Request Splitting (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Smuggling (opens in a new tab)
HTTP Response Splitting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Dec 2025, 20:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-436

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats