CVE-2025-35431VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2025Updated 30 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-35431: CISA Thorium · LDAP Injection

Affects CISA ThoriumSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium · fixed in 1.1.1 : update CISA Thorium when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.1.1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 17 Sep 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 2026-10-25.

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
CISA Thorium	Affected =1.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should promptly upgrade CISA Thorium to version 1.1.1 or later, where this vulnerability has been fixed. If you cannot patch yet, organizations should implement strict access controls to limit who can authenticate to the system, enforce strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication to reduce the risk of credential compromise, and monitor LDAP query logs for unusual or unauthorized modifications to group memberships. Input validation and sanitization should be reviewed and enhanced at the application level to ensure no unescaped user input is passed to LDAP queries. Network segmentation and limiting access to the LDAP service to trusted hosts can reduce exposure. Additionally, organizations should conduct regular audits of LDAP authorization data to detect unauthorized changes promptly. Security teams should also update their intrusion detection and prevention systems with signatures or heuristics that can detect LDAP injection attempts. Finally, user training to recognize phishing or credential theft attempts can help reduce the risk of attackers gaining the initial authentication required to exploit this vulnerability.

Description

CISA Thorium does not escape user controlled strings used in LDAP queries. An authenticated remote attacker can modify LDAP authorization data such as group memberships. Fixed in 1.1.1.

Impact

For European organizations using CISA Thorium 1.0.0, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized privilege escalation within their identity and access management infrastructure. Since LDAP is commonly used for managing user groups and permissions, an attacker exploiting this flaw could alter group memberships, granting themselves or others elevated access rights. This could lead to data exposure, unauthorized changes to sensitive information, or disruption of normal operations due to compromised access controls. The requirement for authentication limits the attack surface to insiders or compromised accounts, but the low complexity and network accessibility increase the risk if credentials are leaked or weak. Organizations in sectors with strict regulatory requirements for data protection, such as finance, healthcare, and government, could face compliance issues if unauthorized access leads to data breaches. Additionally, the integrity of authorization data being compromised can undermine trust in security policies and complicate incident response efforts. Although availability is not directly impacted, the indirect consequences of unauthorized access could include operational disruptions or further exploitation.

CWE-90Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
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
LDAP Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (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 1 Oct 2025, 00:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-90

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats