CVE-2025-53840VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jul 2025Updated 18 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-53840: Icinga icingadb-web · Information Exposure

Affects Icinga icingadb-webSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.4 Low : upgrade to 1.2.2 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.4Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 16 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 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

Upgrade icinga/icingadb-web to 1.2.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubicinga/icingadb-web`pkg:github/icinga/icingadb-web`Other threats	Affected <1.2.2 >=1.2.0 =1.1.3	Fixed in 1.2.2

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading Icinga DB Web to version 1.2.2 or later, where the access restrictions are correctly enforced. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, downgrading to version 1.1.3 is a viable temporary workaround, as this version does not exhibit the vulnerability. Additionally, organizations should review and tighten access controls to ensure that only trusted users have high privilege access to the Icinga Dependency Views. Implementing strict role-based access control (RBAC) policies and monitoring privileged user activities can reduce the risk of exploitation. Regular audits of user permissions and session monitoring can help detect unauthorized access attempts. Network segmentation and limiting access to the monitoring interface to trusted networks or VPNs can further reduce exposure. Finally, organizations should stay informed about any emerging exploits or patches related to this vulnerability and apply security updates promptly.

Description

Icinga DB Web provides a graphical interface for Icinga monitoring. Starting in version 1.2.0 and prior to version 1.2.2, users with access to Icinga Dependency Views, are allowed to see hosts and services that they weren't meant to on the dependency map. However, the name of an object will not be revealed nor does this grant access to a host's or service's detail view. Please note that this only affects the restrictions `filter/hosts` and `filter/services`. `filter/objects` is not affected by this and restricts objects as it is supposed to. Version 1.2.2 applies these restrictions properly. As a workaround, one may downgrade to version 1.1.3.

Impact

For European organizations using Icinga DB Web versions between 1.2.0 and 1.2.1, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized exposure of the existence of certain hosts and services within their monitored infrastructure. While the actual names and detailed information are not disclosed, the mere visibility of these objects could aid an attacker or unauthorized insider in mapping the network topology or identifying critical infrastructure components. This information leakage could facilitate further targeted attacks or reconnaissance activities. The impact on confidentiality is limited but non-negligible, especially in environments where monitoring data is sensitive or where knowledge of infrastructure layout could be leveraged by threat actors. Since exploitation requires authenticated users with high privileges and user interaction, the risk is somewhat mitigated by internal access controls. However, insider threats or compromised privileged accounts could exploit this vulnerability. The integrity and availability of the monitoring system and the monitored infrastructure are not affected. Overall, the impact is low but should not be ignored in environments with strict confidentiality requirements.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (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 24 Jul 2025, 00:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats