VulnerabilityPublished 12 Dec 2025Updated 16 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-53960: Apache StreamPark · Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation

Affects Apache StreamParkSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium · fixed in 2.1.7 : update Apache StreamPark when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.1.7

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 12 Dec 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.apache.streampark/streampark`pkg:maven/org.apache.streampark/streampark`Other threats	Affected =2.0.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Apache StreamPark to version 2.1.7 or later immediately, as this version includes a fix that replaces the insecure use of passwords as HMAC keys.
Review and audit all JWT implementations within the environment to ensure that cryptographic keys are generated securely and are not derived directly from user passwords.
Implement strong password policies and encourage the use of multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the impact of password compromise.
Monitor authentication logs and JWT usage patterns for anomalies that may indicate token forgery or brute-force attempts.
Educate developers and security teams on secure cryptographic practices, emphasizing the importance of using dedicated, high-entropy keys for token signing rather than user credentials.
Conduct regular penetration testing and code reviews focusing on authentication mechanisms to detect similar cryptographic weaknesses.
If upgrading immediately is not feasible, consider implementing compensating controls such as limiting JWT lifetimes and enforcing strict token validation rules to reduce the attack window.

Description

When issuing JSON Web Tokens (JWT), Apache StreamPark directly uses the user's password as the HMAC signing key (e.g., with the HS256 algorithm). An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to perform offline brute-force attacks on the user's password using a captured JWT, or to arbitrarily forge identity tokens for the user if the password is already known, ultimately leading to complete account takeover. This issue affects Apache StreamPark: from 2.0.0 before 2.1.7. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.1.7, which fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to user credential confidentiality and authentication integrity. Compromise of user passwords through offline brute-force attacks can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive systems and data, especially in environments where Apache StreamPark is used for data streaming and processing. The ability to forge identity tokens allows attackers to bypass authentication controls, potentially leading to account takeover, data exfiltration, and lateral movement within networks. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection regulations, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, face heightened risks of regulatory penalties and reputational damage if exploited. Additionally, the offline nature of the attack makes detection difficult, increasing the likelihood of prolonged undetected compromise. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate but non-negligible threat that should be addressed promptly to maintain security posture.

CWE-1240Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
Requirements
Require compliance with the strongest-available recommendations from trusted parties, and require that compliance must be kept up-to-date, since recommendations evolve over time. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the architecture/design uses the strongest-available primitives and algorithms from trusted parties. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cryptanalysis (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 19 Dec 2025, 16:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1240

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats