VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jul 2025Updated 21 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-53861: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2 · Cleartext Transmission

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 11 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-53861, organizations should immediately enforce HTTPS for all communications involving the Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2 to ensure encryption of data in transit. Administrators must verify and configure cookie settings to include Secure and HttpOnly flags, preventing cookie exposure via client-side scripts and ensuring cookies are only sent over encrypted channels. Network segmentation and the use of VPNs or secure tunnels can reduce exposure to MitM attacks by limiting access to the automation platform’s network traffic. Regularly auditing and monitoring network traffic for unencrypted transmissions can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Organizations should also apply any forthcoming patches or updates from Red Hat promptly once available. Employing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with XSS protection capabilities can help mitigate exploitation via script injection. Additionally, educating users and administrators about the risks of using unsecured networks and enforcing strict access controls will reduce attack surface. Finally, integrating security testing into the deployment pipeline can catch misconfigurations related to cookie handling and transport security before production rollout.

Description

A flaw was found in Ansible. Sensitive cookies without security flags over non-encrypted channels can lead to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) and Cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks allowing attackers to read transmitted data.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-53861 is the potential exposure of sensitive cookie data during transmission, which can lead to unauthorized disclosure of session tokens or authentication credentials. This exposure can enable attackers to hijack sessions or gain unauthorized access to automation platform interfaces, potentially disrupting automated workflows or accessing sensitive configuration data. However, the vulnerability does not affect data integrity or system availability directly. The low CVSS score and absence of known exploits suggest limited immediate risk, but organizations using Ansible Automation Platform 2 over unsecured networks remain vulnerable to MitM and XSS attacks. The impact is more pronounced in environments where HTTPS is not enforced or where internal networks are not adequately segmented or monitored. Attackers with network access could leverage this flaw to escalate privileges or move laterally within an organization’s infrastructure. The risk is heightened in sectors relying heavily on automation for critical infrastructure management, such as finance, telecommunications, and government. Overall, while the direct damage potential is low, the vulnerability could serve as an entry point for broader attacks if combined with other weaknesses.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 14:57 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats