CVE-2025-54573VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-54573: cvat · Improper Authentication

Affects cvatSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 30 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 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

AI-suggested

European organizations should promptly upgrade CVAT installations to version 2.42.0 or later to ensure email verification is enforced. Until upgrades are feasible, disabling user self-registration is a critical interim measure, especially for enterprise deployments. Implementing additional rate limiting and CAPTCHA challenges on registration endpoints can reduce bot signup attempts. Monitoring account creation logs for unusual spikes or patterns indicative of automated signups will help detect abuse early. Integrating CVAT authentication with centralized identity providers (e.g., SAML, OAuth) can further reduce reliance on basic authentication and improve user verification. Regularly reviewing and cleaning up inactive or suspicious accounts will maintain system hygiene. Finally, organizations should ensure that their incident response and user management policies account for this vulnerability to quickly respond to any exploitation attempts.

Description

CVAT is an open source interactive video and image annotation tool for computer vision. In versions 1.1.0 through 2.41.0, email verification was not enforced when using Basic HTTP Authentication. As a result, users could create accounts using fake email addresses and use the product as verified users. Additionally, the missing email verification check leaves the system open to bot signups and further usage. CVAT 2.42.0 and later versions contain a fix for the issue. CVAT Enterprise customers have a workaround available; those customers may disable registration to prevent this issue.

Impact

For European organizations using CVAT for computer vision annotation tasks, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized account creation and abuse of system resources. While the flaw does not directly compromise confidentiality or data integrity, the ability for attackers or bots to create numerous fake accounts can degrade service availability, potentially disrupting annotation workflows critical for AI model training and development. Organizations relying on CVAT in sectors such as automotive, healthcare, or manufacturing could face operational delays or increased costs due to resource exhaustion or the need to manually manage fraudulent accounts. Furthermore, the presence of fake accounts could skew user activity metrics or audit logs, complicating incident response and compliance efforts under regulations like GDPR. Since CVAT is often deployed in research and enterprise environments, the risk is more operational than data breach-related but still significant for maintaining service reliability and trustworthiness.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Jul 2025, 15:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats