CVE-2025-54350VulnerabilityPublished 3 Aug 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-54350: ES iperf3 · Reachable Assertion

Affects ES iperf3Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ES iperf3	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-54350, European organizations should prioritize upgrading iperf3 to version 3.19.1 or later once the patch is officially released. Until then, restricting access to iperf3 services is essential; this can be achieved by implementing network segmentation, firewall rules, and access control lists to limit connections to trusted hosts only. Monitoring network traffic for malformed authentication attempts targeting iperf3 can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Incorporating iperf3 into secure testing environments isolated from production networks reduces risk exposure. Additionally, organizations should review and harden authentication mechanisms used by iperf3 to prevent malformed inputs from reaching the decoding routines. Regularly updating and auditing network performance tools and their configurations will help maintain resilience against similar vulnerabilities. Finally, maintaining incident response readiness to quickly restart or recover iperf3 services in case of crashes will minimize operational impact.

Description

In iperf before 3.19.1, iperf_auth.c has a Base64Decode assertion failure and application exit upon a malformed authentication attempt.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-54350 is the potential for denial of service during network performance testing or monitoring activities that rely on iperf3. Disruptions could affect network diagnostics, capacity planning, and troubleshooting processes, particularly in environments where iperf3 is integrated into automated monitoring or testing pipelines. Since the vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or integrity, the risk of data breach or manipulation is minimal. However, availability interruptions could delay critical network operations or degrade service quality temporarily. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on network performance tools—such as telecommunications, research institutions, and large enterprises—may experience operational inconvenience or reduced visibility into network health. The lack of known exploits and the high complexity of triggering the assertion failure reduce the likelihood of widespread attacks, but targeted attempts could still cause localized disruptions. Overall, the impact is limited but should not be ignored in environments where iperf3 availability is critical.

CWE-617Reachable Assertion (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
Implementation
Make sensitive open/close operation non reachable by directly user-controlled data (e.g. open/close resources)
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on user data.
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 3 Nov 2025, 19:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-617

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats