VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jul 2025Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-49827: cyberark conjur · Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision

Affects cyberark conjurSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 1.22.1 as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 73% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.22.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Jul 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 cyberark/conjur to 1.22.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubcyberark/conjur`pkg:github/cyberark/conjur`Other threats	Affected <1.22.1	Fixed in 1.22.1

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify their Conjur OSS and Secrets Manager versions and plan upgrades to Conjur OSS 1.22.1 or later and Secrets Manager 13.5.1 or 13.6.1 or later. Until patching is complete, organizations should restrict network access to the IAM authenticator endpoints to trusted hosts only and monitor network traffic for unusual redirection or DNS anomalies that could indicate exploitation attempts. Implement strict egress filtering to prevent unauthorized outbound connections from the Conjur server to unknown external IPs, which could be used in redirection attacks. Additionally, review and tighten IAM policies and audit logs for anomalous authentication requests or permission escalations. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block malformed header patterns or suspicious authentication flows. Regularly validate and test the integrity of authentication mechanisms through penetration testing and code audits focusing on input validation. Finally, maintain an incident response plan tailored to secrets management compromise scenarios.

Description

Conjur provides secrets management and application identity for infrastructure. Conjur OSS versions 1.19.5 through 1.22.0 and Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted (formerly known as Conjur Enterprise) 13.1 through 13.5 and 13.6 are vulnerable to bypass of the IAM authenticator. An attacker who can manipulate the headers signed by AWS can take advantage of a malformed regular expression to redirect the authentication validation request that Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted sends to AWS to a malicious server controlled by the attacker. This redirection could result in a bypass of the Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted IAM Authenticator, granting the attacker the permissions granted to the client whose request was manipulated. This issue affects both Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted (formerly Conjur Enterprise) and Conjur OSS. Conjur OSS version 1.22.1 and Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted versions 13.5.1 and 13.6.1 fix the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive credentials and secrets managed by CyberArk Conjur. Since Conjur is often deployed in enterprise environments to secure access to cloud infrastructure and applications, successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to critical systems and data, potentially enabling lateral movement, data exfiltration, or disruption of services. The bypass of IAM authentication could allow attackers to impersonate legitimate clients, escalating privileges without detection. This is particularly concerning for sectors with stringent compliance requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government agencies across Europe. The impact is exacerbated in hybrid or multi-cloud environments where Conjur integrates with AWS IAM, as attackers could leverage this flaw to compromise cloud resources. The absence of known exploits in the wild provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the critical severity demands urgent attention.

CWE-807Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (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 4 Nov 2025, 21:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-807

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats