CVE-2025-49521VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jun 2025Updated 13 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-49521: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8 · Code Injection

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 for RHEL 8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: 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 30 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 2026-10-25.

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-49521, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately restrict access to the Ansible Automation Platform EDA component to only trusted and necessary users, enforcing the principle of least privilege. 2) Monitor and audit usage of Git branch or refspec inputs within EDA workflows to detect anomalous or suspicious template expressions. 3) Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure of EDA workers, especially in multi-tenant or containerized environments like OpenShift. 4) Until an official patch is released, consider disabling or restricting features that process user-supplied Git branch or refspec values as templates, if operationally feasible. 5) Use strong authentication mechanisms and rotate credentials regularly to reduce the risk of compromised accounts being used for exploitation. 6) In OpenShift environments, monitor service account token usage and implement strict RBAC policies to minimize token privileges and detect unusual access patterns. 7) Stay informed on Red Hat advisories and apply patches promptly once available. 8) Conduct internal penetration testing and code reviews focusing on template processing to identify similar injection risks. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific attack vector and environment context of this vulnerability.

Description

A flaw was found in the EDA component of the Ansible Automation Platform, where user-supplied Git branch or refspec values are evaluated as Jinja2 templates. This vulnerability allows authenticated users to inject expressions that execute commands or access sensitive files on the EDA worker. In OpenShift, it can lead to service account token theft.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-49521 is substantial for organizations using Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 on RHEL 8, especially those leveraging the EDA component for automation workflows. Successful exploitation allows authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands on the EDA worker, potentially leading to full system compromise, data exfiltration, or disruption of automation processes. In OpenShift deployments, the theft of service account tokens can enable attackers to move laterally within the cluster, escalate privileges, and compromise additional resources, severely undermining container security. This can result in unauthorized access to sensitive infrastructure, disruption of critical automation pipelines, and exposure of confidential data. Given Ansible's widespread use in enterprise environments for configuration management and orchestration, this vulnerability could affect a broad range of industries including finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and government. The requirement for authentication limits exposure to internal or trusted users, but insider threats or compromised credentials could be leveraged to exploit this flaw. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for remediation, but the high severity score underscores the urgency of addressing this issue to prevent potential attacks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 14:11 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats