CVE-2025-22381VulnerabilityPublished 16 Oct 2025Updated 2 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-22381: aggie · n/a

Affects aggieSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% 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:U/C:H/I:N/A:L

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

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubtid-lab/aggie`pkg:github/tid-lab/aggie`Other threats	Affected =2.6.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Implement strict validation and sanitization of the Host header in all HTTP requests, especially those involved in password reset workflows, to ensure only legitimate hostnames are accepted. 2. Configure web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block anomalous or suspicious Host header values. 3. Monitor password reset request logs for unusual patterns, such as multiple resets for the same user or resets originating from unexpected IP addresses. 4. Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) on user accounts to reduce the impact of unauthorized password resets. 5. Segregate password reset functionality to minimize trust on client-supplied headers and consider using fixed URLs or tokens that do not rely on Host headers. 6. Engage with the Aggie vendor or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 7. Educate users about phishing and social engineering risks that could compound this vulnerability. 8. Conduct penetration testing and code reviews focusing on header injection and authentication flows to identify similar weaknesses.

Description

Aggie 2.6.1 has a Host Header injection vulnerability in the forgot password functionality, allowing an attacker to reset a user's password.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to user account security and confidentiality. Attackers exploiting this flaw can reset passwords without authentication, potentially gaining access to sensitive user data or internal systems if accounts have elevated privileges. This could lead to data breaches, identity theft, and unauthorized access to corporate resources. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government, where Aggie might be used for user management or authentication workflows, are particularly vulnerable. The impact extends to reputational damage and regulatory consequences under GDPR if personal data is compromised. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly, the primary concern is unauthorized access and confidentiality breaches. The absence of known exploits provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the high CVSS score indicates urgency in addressing the issue.

CWE-620Unverified Password Change (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When setting a new password for a user, the product does not require knowledge of the original password, or using another form of authentication.
Architecture and Design
When prompting for a password change, force the user to provide the original password in addition to the new password.
Architecture and Design
Do not use "forgotten password" functionality. But if you must, ensure that you are only providing information to the actual user, e.g. by using an email address or challenge question that the legitimate user already provided in the past; do not allow the current user to change this identity information until the…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Choosing and Using Security Questions (opens in a new tab)
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Credential Stuffing Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V2.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.1.5 (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 3 Feb 2026, 08:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-620

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats