VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-41256: iterate Cyberduck · Use of Weak Hash

Affects iterate CyberduckSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High : upgrade to 9.1.7 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.1.7

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 25 Jun 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Upgrade iterate-ch/cyberduck to 9.1.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubiterate-ch/cyberduck`pkg:github/iterate-ch/cyberduck`Other threats	Affected <9.1.7	Fixed in 9.1.7

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

AI-suggested

2) Until patches are released, avoid using self-signed or untrusted certificates with these applications; instead, use certificates issued by trusted Certificate Authorities (CAs) to minimize exposure. 3) Implement network-level protections such as TLS interception detection tools and anomaly-based intrusion detection systems to identify potential MITM attempts. 4) Enforce strict certificate validation policies and consider deploying certificate transparency monitoring to detect unauthorized certificate issuance. 5) Educate IT and security teams about this vulnerability to monitor for suspicious network activity involving Cyberduck or Mountain Duck. 6) Where feasible, restrict the use of these applications to controlled environments and limit exposure to untrusted networks. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on TLS configurations and certificate pinning implementations. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific cryptographic weakness and operational contexts of the affected products.

Description

Cyberduck and Mountain Duck improper handle TLS certificate pinning for untrusted certificates (e.g., self-signed), since the certificate fingerprint is stored as SHA-1, although SHA-1 is considered weak. This issue affects Cyberduck: through 9.1.6; Mountain Duck: through 4.17.5.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on Cyberduck and Mountain Duck for secure file transfers and cloud storage access. The weakness in certificate pinning could allow attackers to perform MITM attacks, intercepting or manipulating sensitive data in transit without detection. This threatens the confidentiality and integrity of data exchanges, potentially exposing intellectual property, personal data, or critical business information. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, legal, and government agencies, which often handle sensitive or regulated data, are particularly at risk. Additionally, organizations using self-signed certificates internally or in hybrid cloud environments are more vulnerable since the issue specifically affects untrusted certificates. The lack of required authentication or user interaction for exploitation increases the risk profile. Given the high attack complexity, exploitation may require advanced capabilities, but motivated threat actors, including cybercriminal groups or state-sponsored entities, could leverage this vulnerability to target European entities. The absence of known exploits currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks once exploit techniques are developed or disclosed.

CWE-328Use of Weak Hash (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses an algorithm that produces a digest (output value) that does not meet security expectations for a hash function that allows an adversary to reasonably determine the original input (preimage attack), find another input that can produce the same hash (2nd preimage attack), or find multiple inputs that evaluate to the same hash (birthday attack).
Architecture and Design
Use an adaptive hash function that can be configured to change the amount of computational effort needed to compute the hash, such as the number of iterations ("stretching") or the amount of memory required. Some hash functions perform salting automatically.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Subvert Code-signing Facilities (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 25 Jun 2025, 09:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-328

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats