CVE-2025-2885VulnerabilityPublished 27 Mar 2025Updated 14 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-2885: AWS tough · Improper Validation of Consistency within Input

Affects AWS toughSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Mar 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
AWS tough	Affected =0.1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade to AWS tough version 0.20.0 or later to incorporate the fix for this vulnerability. For any forked or derivative versions of tough, ensure that the patch addressing the root metadata version validation is backported and applied. Conduct thorough code audits on custom implementations of the update framework to verify proper validation of metadata version consistency. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on systems managing software updates to prevent unauthorized modification of metadata files. Employ multi-factor authentication and limit privileges for users interacting with update infrastructure to reduce the risk of exploitation. Additionally, integrate cryptographic verification of metadata and updates beyond version checks to detect tampering. Regularly review and test update mechanisms as part of supply chain security assessments. Finally, maintain awareness of any emerging exploits or advisories related to this CVE to respond promptly.

Description

Missing validation of the root metatdata version number could allow an actor to supply an arbitrary version number to the client instead of the intended version in the root metadata file, altering the version fetched by the client. Users should upgrade to tough version 0.20.0 or later and ensure any forked or derivative code is patched to incorporate the new fixes.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of software update mechanisms that rely on AWS tough or its forks. Compromising the root metadata version validation can lead to acceptance of malicious or outdated updates, potentially resulting in unauthorized code execution, system compromise, or persistent backdoors. This is particularly critical for sectors relying heavily on secure software supply chains, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. The medium severity and requirement for high privileges and user interaction reduce the likelihood of widespread exploitation but do not eliminate the risk. Organizations using AWS tough in their CI/CD pipelines or embedded in their software distribution should consider this a significant risk to software integrity and trust. Failure to patch could lead to supply chain attacks, undermining compliance with European cybersecurity regulations like NIS2 and GDPR where software integrity is essential.

Summary

CVE-2025-2885 is a vulnerability identified in AWS tough, an open-source library used for secure software update frameworks, specifically in version 0.1.0. The issue stems from improper validation of the root metadata version number (CWE-1288), where the client fails to verify the consistency of the version field in the root metadata file. This allows an attacker to supply an arbitrary version number, potentially causing the client to accept a manipulated or outdated version of the root metadata. Such manipulation can undermine the integrity of the update process, enabling attacks like rollback or malicious update injection. The vulnerability requires network attack vector (AV:N), high attack complexity (AC:H), no privileges required (PR:H), partial user interaction (UI:P), and impacts integrity with high impact (VI:H). No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. AWS has fixed this issue in tough version 0.20.0, and users are advised to upgrade and patch any derivative codebases. The vulnerability affects supply chain security by potentially allowing attackers to influence the software update mechanism, which is critical for maintaining trustworthiness in distributed software environments.

CWE-1288Improper Validation of Consistency within Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (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 14 Oct 2025, 18:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1288

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats