CVE-2025-2888VulnerabilityPublished 27 Mar 2025Updated 14 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-2888: AWS tough · Comparison Using Wrong Factors

Affects AWS toughSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 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 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 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

1. Upgrade all instances of AWS tough to version 0.20.0 or later immediately to incorporate the fix for timestamp caching and validation logic. 2. Review and patch any forked or derivative codebases that implement or extend AWS tough to ensure they include the updated timestamp handling logic. 3. Implement monitoring to detect failed update attempts following snapshot rollbacks, enabling rapid identification of this issue in operational environments. 4. Automate cache clearing procedures post-snapshot rollback as a temporary workaround if immediate upgrading is not feasible. 5. Restrict high privilege access to update management components to reduce the risk of exploitation requiring elevated permissions. 6. Conduct thorough testing of update and rollback workflows in staging environments to detect timestamp validation failures before production deployment. 7. Maintain up-to-date documentation and training for operational teams on the implications of snapshot rollbacks and update validation processes. 8. Coordinate with AWS support and security advisories to stay informed about any emerging exploits or additional patches related to this vulnerability.

Description

During a snapshot rollback, the client incorrectly caches the timestamp metadata. If the client checks the cache when attempting to perform the next update, the update timestamp validation will fail, preventing the next update until the cache is cleared. 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, the primary impact of CVE-2025-2888 is on system availability and operational continuity. Organizations using AWS tough for secure update management may experience failed update processes after snapshot rollbacks, leading to potential downtime or delayed patch deployments. This can increase exposure to other vulnerabilities if updates are blocked. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly compromised, the denial of service-like effect can disrupt critical infrastructure, especially in sectors relying on timely updates such as finance, healthcare, and government services. The requirement for high privileges and user interaction limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments with complex update workflows or automated rollback mechanisms. European cloud service providers and enterprises heavily utilizing AWS services may face operational challenges if they do not promptly apply patches. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future exploitation attempts.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Oct 2025, 18:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1025

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats