VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-54568: Akamai Rate Control · Incorrect Provision of Specified Functionality

Affects Akamai Rate ControlSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% 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 25 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

Organizations using Akamai Rate Control alpha versions should prioritize upgrading to a stable, patched release once available. Until then, they should implement compensating controls such as centralized rate limiting or request throttling at the application or backend level to prevent abuse across distributed edge nodes. Monitoring traffic patterns for unusual spikes distributed across multiple edge nodes can help detect attempts to exploit this vulnerability. Additionally, deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to identify and block distributed request floods can mitigate risk. Network-level protections, such as IP reputation filtering and geo-blocking, may also reduce exposure. Engaging with Akamai support to obtain guidance on interim mitigations and timelines for patches is recommended. Finally, organizations should review their incident response plans to include scenarios involving rate limiting bypass and ensure logging and alerting mechanisms are in place to detect anomalous traffic patterns.

Description

Akamai Rate Control alpha before 2025 allows attackers to send requests above the stipulated thresholds because the rate is measured separately for each edge node.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability lies in the potential degradation of service availability. Organizations relying on Akamai's Rate Control for protecting their web applications or APIs from abusive traffic could see their defenses bypassed, allowing attackers to flood backend systems with excessive requests. This could lead to performance issues, increased operational costs, or temporary denial of service. Given that Akamai is a major CDN and security provider with significant market penetration in Europe, especially among enterprises and service providers, the risk is non-negligible. However, since the vulnerability only affects an alpha version and has a low CVSS score, the immediate threat is limited. Nonetheless, organizations in sectors with high availability requirements—such as financial services, e-commerce, and critical infrastructure—should monitor this vulnerability closely. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact means data breaches or data manipulation are unlikely through this vector. The high attack complexity and absence of known exploits further reduce the immediate risk, but the potential for attackers to bypass rate limits could facilitate other attack types if combined with additional vulnerabilities or weaknesses.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Jul 2025, 04:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-684

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats