VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-51306: Gatling Enterprise · Improper Restriction of Security Token Assignment

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 1.25.0 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.25.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 6 Aug 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

AI-suggested

Organizations should promptly upgrade Gatling Enterprise to version 1.25.0 or later, where this session management flaw has been addressed. If you cannot patch yet, administrators should implement compensating controls such as enforcing strict session timeout policies at the network or application gateway level, monitoring active sessions for unusual activity, and requiring re-authentication for sensitive operations within the application. Additionally, reviewing and tightening access controls around Gatling Enterprise instances, including network segmentation and multi-factor authentication for user access, can reduce the risk of exploitation. Security teams should also audit logs for any anomalous session reuse after logout events and educate users about the importance of reporting suspicious behavior. Finally, organizations should coordinate with Gatling support or vendors to obtain official patches and guidance.

Description

In Gatling Enterprise versions below 1.25.0, a user logging-out can still use his session token to continue using the application without expiration, due to incorrect session management.

Impact

For European organizations using Gatling Enterprise, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to the application even after users have logged out, potentially exposing sensitive performance testing data or allowing malicious actors to interfere with testing processes. This could undermine the integrity and confidentiality of testing environments, which are often used to validate critical business applications before deployment. In regulated industries such as finance, healthcare, and telecommunications, where data protection and compliance are paramount, such unauthorized access could result in regulatory violations, reputational damage, and operational disruptions. Additionally, if attackers leverage persistent sessions to escalate privileges or pivot to other parts of the network, the impact could extend beyond the testing environment. The risk is heightened in organizations with remote or distributed teams, where session management is crucial for maintaining secure access controls.

CWE-1259Improper Restriction of Security Token Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The System-On-A-Chip (SoC) implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. However, the Security Tokens are improperly protected.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Security Token assignment review checks for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Security-Token definition and programming flow is tested in both pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploit Non-Production Interfaces (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Improperly Controlled Hardware Security Identifiers (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Aug 2025, 15:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1259

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats