VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-54535: JetBrains TeamCity · CWE-328

Affects JetBrains TeamCitySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 28 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
JetBrains TeamCity	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading TeamCity to version 2025.07 or later, where the weak hashing algorithms have been replaced with cryptographically strong alternatives. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, organizations should implement compensating controls such as enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all TeamCity user accounts to reduce the risk of unauthorized access via token compromise. Additionally, monitoring and logging password reset and email verification activities can help detect suspicious behavior. Organizations should also review and harden their CI/CD pipeline security posture by restricting network access to TeamCity servers, applying the principle of least privilege for user accounts, and conducting regular security audits. Finally, educating developers and DevOps teams about secure token management and the importance of timely patching is critical to prevent exploitation.

Description

In JetBrains TeamCity before 2025.07 password reset and email verification tokens were using weak hashing algorithms

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be substantial, especially for those heavily dependent on TeamCity for their DevOps processes. Exploitation could allow attackers to compromise password reset and email verification tokens, potentially enabling unauthorized access to user accounts or the ability to manipulate account recovery processes. This could lead to unauthorized access to build configurations, source code, or deployment pipelines, risking intellectual property theft, insertion of malicious code, or disruption of software delivery. Given the nature of CI/CD environments, a compromised TeamCity server could serve as a pivot point for further attacks within the organization's network. The confidentiality impact is moderate, but the potential for lateral movement and supply chain compromise elevates the risk. European organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, which rely on secure software development practices, could face regulatory and reputational consequences if this vulnerability is exploited.

CWE-328Use of Weak Hash (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses an algorithm that produces a digest (output value) that does not meet security expectations for a hash function that allows an adversary to reasonably determine the original input (preimage attack), find another input that can produce the same hash (2nd preimage attack), or find multiple inputs that evaluate to the same hash (birthday attack).
Architecture and Design
Use an adaptive hash function that can be configured to change the amount of computational effort needed to compute the hash, such as the number of iterations ("stretching") or the amount of memory required. Some hash functions perform salting automatically.
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
V2.8.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Subvert Code-signing Facilities (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

jetbrains.com/privacy-security/issues-fixed/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Jul 2025, 16:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-328

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats