CVE-2025-54549VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-54549: Arista Networks DANZ Monitoring Fabric · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects Arista Networks DANZ Monitoring FabricSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.08% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 29 Oct 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 2026-10-26.

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
Arista Networks DANZ Monitoring Fabric	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Restrict upgrade privileges strictly to trusted administrators and enforce the principle of least privilege. 2. Implement multi-factor authentication for any administrative actions related to software upgrades. 3. Monitor upgrade processes closely for any anomalies or unexpected files within upgrade ISOs. 4. Use out-of-band verification methods to validate upgrade images, such as independent cryptographic checksums or signatures verified on separate systems. 5. Maintain strict physical and logical access controls to systems running DANZ Monitoring Fabric to prevent unauthorized local access. 6. Establish a process for immediate vendor communication and patch deployment once a fix is released. 7. Conduct regular audits of upgrade procedures and logs to detect any attempts to bypass signature verification. 8. Educate administrators about the risks of executing upgrades without verifying the integrity of upgrade files. 9. Consider network segmentation to limit the impact of any compromised monitoring fabric components. 10. Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect suspicious activities related to upgrade processes.

Description

Cryptographic validation of upgrade images could be circumventing by dropping a specifically crafted file into the upgrade ISO

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on Arista Networks' DANZ Monitoring Fabric for network monitoring and traffic analysis, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of their network infrastructure. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to insert malicious code during software upgrades, potentially leading to unauthorized control or manipulation of network monitoring data. This could undermine incident detection, network visibility, and response capabilities. Critical sectors such as telecommunications, finance, energy, and government agencies that depend on reliable network monitoring are particularly at risk. The lack of confidentiality and availability impact reduces the risk of data leakage or service disruption directly, but the integrity compromise could facilitate further attacks or persistent threats within the network. The requirement for local access and user interaction limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with multiple administrators or less stringent access controls.

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

arista.com/en/support/advisories-notices/security-advisory/22538-security-advisory-0124 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2025, 02:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats