VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13653: floragunn Search Guard FLX · Information Exposure

Affects floragunn Search Guard FLXSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 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 9% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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 1 Dec 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
Mavencom.floragunn/search-guard-flx`pkg:maven/com.floragunn/search-guard-flx`Other threats	Affected =3.1.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade to the latest version of Search Guard FLX once a patch addressing CVE-2025-13653 is released by floragunn.
Temporarily enable enterprise modules if feasible, as they enforce stricter access controls preventing unauthorized data stream reads.
Implement strict authentication and authorization policies to minimize the number of users with access to Search Guard FLX and Elasticsearch clusters.
Conduct thorough audits of user privileges and remove unnecessary access rights, especially for data stream reading capabilities.
Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to Elasticsearch clusters only to trusted hosts and users.
Monitor logs for unusual access patterns or attempts to exploit data streams.
Consider deploying additional data encryption at rest and in transit to reduce the impact of unauthorized reads.
Educate administrators and users about the risks of privilege misuse and enforce strong credential management practices.

Description

CVE-2025-13653 is a medium-severity vulnerability in floragunn's Search Guard FLX (version 3.1.0 up to 4.0.0 with enterprise modules disabled) that allows authenticated users to read sensitive documents from data streams without proper privileges. The flaw arises from improper access control, enabling unauthorized data exposure. Exploitation requires authentication but no user interaction and can be performed remotely over the network. Although no known exploits are currently in the wild, the vulnerability poses a confidentiality risk. European organizations using affected versions of Search Guard FLX should prioritize patching or mitigating this issue to prevent unauthorized data disclosure. Countries with significant Elasticsearch and Search Guard deployments, such as Germany and the UK, are more likely to be impacted.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information stored in Elasticsearch data streams protected by Search Guard FLX. Confidentiality breaches could expose personal data, intellectual property, or other critical business information, potentially violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The impact is heightened in sectors with stringent compliance requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government. Since exploitation requires authentication, the threat is primarily from malicious insiders or compromised user accounts. However, the ease of exploitation (low complexity) and network accessibility increase risk. Organizations relying on Search Guard FLX without enterprise modules enabled are particularly vulnerable. Data leakage incidents could lead to reputational damage, regulatory fines, and operational disruptions. The absence of integrity or availability impact limits the scope to confidentiality, but the sensitivity of exposed data could be significant.

Summary

CVE-2025-13653 is a vulnerability classified under CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information) and CWE-863 (Incorrect Authorization) affecting floragunn's Search Guard FLX product, specifically versions from 3.1.0 up to but not including 4.0.0 when enterprise modules are disabled. Search Guard FLX is a security plugin for Elasticsearch that provides access control and encryption capabilities. The vulnerability allows an authenticated user with limited privileges to craft special requests that bypass intended access restrictions and read documents from data streams they should not have access to. This occurs because the access control mechanisms fail to properly enforce privilege checks on certain data stream read operations when enterprise modules are disabled, leading to unauthorized information disclosure. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 4.3 (medium), reflecting that the attack vector is network-based, requires low privileges, no user interaction, and impacts confidentiality only. No integrity or availability impacts are noted. No public exploits have been reported yet, but the flaw could be leveraged by insiders or compromised accounts to access sensitive data. The vulnerability was reserved on 2025-11-25 and published on 2025-12-01, indicating recent discovery. No patches or fixes are currently linked, so mitigation relies on configuration changes or awaiting vendor updates.

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).
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 8 Dec 2025, 19:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200, CWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats