CVE-2025-32947VulnerabilityPublished 15 Apr 2025Updated 20 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-32947: JFROG · Infinite Loop

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% 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:N/I:N/A:H

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Apr 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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation involves monitoring and restricting incoming ActivityPub traffic to the "inbox" endpoint, potentially through rate limiting or filtering suspicious payloads at the network perimeter or application firewall. Administrators should implement strict validation of ActivityPub activities to detect and block malformed or suspicious messages before processing. Deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules targeting known exploit patterns can reduce exposure. Given the absence of official patches, organizations should consider temporarily disabling federation or restricting inbound federation traffic from untrusted peers until a fix is available. Regularly updating PeerTube to the latest versions once patches are released is critical. Additionally, implementing robust monitoring and alerting on server responsiveness and resource utilization can enable rapid detection of DoS attempts. Network segmentation and redundancy strategies can help maintain service continuity if one instance is targeted. Finally, engaging with the PeerTube community and security mailing lists will provide timely updates and shared mitigation strategies.

Description

This vulnerability allows any attacker to cause the PeerTube server to stop responding to requests due to an infinite loop in the "inbox" endpoint when receiving crafted ActivityPub activities.

Impact

For European organizations using PeerTube instances—particularly media outlets, educational institutions, and community platforms relying on decentralized video hosting—this vulnerability poses a significant risk of service disruption. An attacker can remotely trigger the infinite loop, causing downtime and potentially impacting the availability of critical video content and federated communication channels. This can degrade user trust and interrupt workflows dependent on PeerTube for content distribution. Since PeerTube is often used by privacy-conscious and decentralized communities, a successful DoS attack could also hinder efforts to provide censorship-resistant platforms. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact limits data breach concerns; however, the availability impact alone can have operational and reputational consequences. Organizations with public-facing PeerTube servers are particularly vulnerable, as the attack requires no authentication or user interaction. Additionally, the federated nature of ActivityPub means that compromised instances could affect interconnected nodes, amplifying disruption within European federated networks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Aug 2025, 09:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-835

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats