CVE-2025-49012VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2025Updated 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-49012: himmelblau · Improper Authentication

Affects himmelblauSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 0.9.15 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.15

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 5 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 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

Upgrade himmelblau-idm/himmelblau to 0.9.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubhimmelblau-idm/himmelblau`pkg:github/himmelblau-idm/himmelblau`Other threats	Affected =1.0.0-alpha <0.9.15	Fixed in 0.9.15

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

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade himmelblau to version 0.9.15 or later immediately to eliminate support for group name matching and enforce use of immutable objectIds for group filtering. 2. Audit your Microsoft Entra ID tenant using Microsoft Graph API to identify and remediate any duplicate group display names, especially those matching critical access groups. 3. Replace all entries in the `pam_allow_groups` configuration with the unique objectId (GUID) of the target groups instead of display names to prevent spoofing. 4. Review and tighten tenant permissions to restrict the ability to create groups to trusted administrators only, minimizing the risk of malicious group creation. 5. Implement continuous monitoring and alerting for creation of new groups with names matching privileged access groups. 6. Conduct regular access reviews and verify group memberships to detect unauthorized additions. 7. Consider additional multi-factor authentication and just-in-time access controls for privileged operations to reduce risk of compromised accounts exploiting this vulnerability. 8. Document and test incident response procedures for potential privilege escalation incidents related to identity management.

Description

Himmelblau is an interoperability suite for Microsoft Azure Entra ID and Intune. Himmelblau versions 0.9.0 through 0.9.14 and 1.00-alpha are vulnerable to a privilege escalation issue when Entra ID group-based access restrictions are configured using group display names instead of object IDs. Starting in version 0.9.0, Himmelblau introduced support for specifying group names in the `pam_allow_groups` configuration option. However, Microsoft Entra ID permits the creation of multiple groups with the same `displayName` via the Microsoft Graph API—even by non-admin users, depending on tenant settings. As a result, a user could create a personal group with the same name as a legitimate access group (e.g., `"Allow-Linux-Login"`), add themselves to it, and be granted authentication or `sudo` rights by Himmelblau. Because affected Himmelblau versions compare group names by either `displayName` or by the immutable `objectId`, this allows bypassing access control mechanisms intended to restrict login to members of official, centrally-managed groups. This issue is fixed in Himmelblau version **0.9.15** and later. In these versions, group name matching in `pam_allow_groups` has been deprecated and removed, and only group `objectId`s (GUIDs) may be specified for secure group-based filtering. To mitigate the issue without upgrading, replace all entries in `pam_allow_groups` with the objectId of the target Entra ID group(s) and/or audit your tenant for groups with duplicate display names using the Microsoft Graph API.

Impact

For European organizations using himmelblau for Azure Entra ID and Intune interoperability, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of unauthorized privilege escalation. Attackers with limited privileges in the Azure tenant could create spoofed groups to gain elevated access on Linux systems managed via himmelblau, potentially leading to unauthorized administrative access, lateral movement, and compromise of sensitive data or critical infrastructure. Given the widespread adoption of Microsoft Azure services across Europe, organizations relying on himmelblau for identity federation and access control could face breaches impacting confidentiality and integrity of systems. The vulnerability undermines trust in group-based access controls and could disrupt compliance with European data protection regulations such as GDPR if unauthorized access leads to data exposure. The absence of user interaction and the network-based attack vector increase the risk of automated or stealthy exploitation. However, the requirement for some level of privilege to create groups in Entra ID somewhat limits the attacker base, typically to insiders or compromised accounts. Still, the impact on operational security and potential for privilege escalation makes this vulnerability a critical concern for identity and access management in European enterprises.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (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 7 Jul 2025, 17:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats