CVE-2025-5247VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2025

CVE-2025-5247: Gowabby HFish · Improper Authentication

Affects Gowabby HFishSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
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: 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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 27 May 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/gowabby/hfish`pkg:golang/github.com/gowabby/hfish`Other threats	Affected =0.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediate upgrade or patching: Although no patches are currently linked, organizations should monitor Gowabby's official channels for security updates or patches addressing CVE-2025-5247 and apply them promptly. 2. Restrict network exposure: Limit access to HFish instances by implementing strict firewall rules, VPN access, or IP whitelisting to reduce exposure to untrusted networks. 3. Implement additional authentication layers: Deploy multi-factor authentication (MFA) or external authentication proxies in front of HFish to mitigate the risk of authentication bypass. 4. Monitor and log authentication attempts: Enable detailed logging and real-time monitoring of authentication events to detect unusual or unauthorized access attempts. 5. Conduct security assessments: Perform penetration testing and code reviews on HFish deployments to identify and remediate similar authentication weaknesses. 6. Segmentation and least privilege: Isolate HFish systems from critical infrastructure and enforce least privilege principles to limit potential damage from exploitation. 7. Incident response readiness: Prepare and test incident response plans specifically for authentication bypass scenarios to ensure rapid containment and remediation if exploitation occurs.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in Gowabby HFish 0.1. This issue affects the function LoadUrl of the file \view\url.go. The manipulation of the argument r leads to improper authentication. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using Gowabby HFish 0.1, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to internal systems or services protected by HFish authentication. This could result in exposure of sensitive data, unauthorized actions within the application, or further lateral movement within the network. The medium CVSS score and limited impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability suggest that while the vulnerability is serious, it may not lead to full system compromise or widespread data breaches on its own. However, in environments where HFish is integrated with critical infrastructure or sensitive data repositories, the risk escalates. European organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, or government that rely on HFish for authentication should be particularly cautious. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk, but public disclosure increases the likelihood of future exploitation attempts. Additionally, the remote nature of the attack vector means that exposed HFish instances accessible over the internet are at higher risk. Organizations with poor network segmentation or insufficient monitoring may face greater impact.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…