VulnerabilityPublished 15 Oct 2025Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-55039: Apache Spark · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Affects Apache SparkSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% 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:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 15 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 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
Apache Software Foundation Apache Spark	Affected =3.5.0 =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their Apache Spark deployments to identify versions prior to 3.4.4, 3.5.2, and 4.0.0 and check the configuration of spark.network.crypto.enabled and spark.network.crypto.cipher. If network encryption is enabled, explicitly configure spark.network.crypto.cipher to AES/GCM/NoPadding to ensure authenticated encryption and prevent bit-flipping attacks. Alternatively, enable SSL encryption by setting spark.ssl.enabled to true to leverage stronger transport layer security. Organizations should also consider upgrading to the latest patched versions of Apache Spark where this issue is resolved by default. Network segmentation and use of VPNs or secure tunnels for Spark node communication can reduce exposure to MITM attacks. Monitoring network traffic for anomalies and implementing intrusion detection systems can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Finally, ensure that security policies enforce secure configurations and that DevOps teams are trained to avoid insecure defaults in distributed computing environments.

Description

This issue affects Apache Spark versions before 3.4.4, 3.5.2 and 4.0.0. Apache Spark versions before 4.0.0, 3.5.2 and 3.4.4 use an insecure default network encryption cipher for RPC communication between nodes. When spark.network.crypto.enabled is set to true (it is set to false by default), but spark.network.crypto.cipher is not explicitly configured, Spark defaults to AES in CTR mode (AES/CTR/NoPadding), which provides encryption without authentication. This vulnerability allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to modify encrypted RPC traffic undetected by flipping bits in ciphertext, potentially compromising heartbeat messages or application data and affecting the integrity of Spark workflows. To mitigate this issue, users should either configure spark.network.crypto.cipher to AES/GCM/NoPadding to enable authenticated encryption or enable SSL encryption by setting spark.ssl.enabled to true, which provides stronger transport security.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can undermine the integrity of distributed data processing workflows relying on Apache Spark, especially in sectors handling sensitive or critical data such as finance, telecommunications, healthcare, and scientific research. An attacker capable of intercepting network traffic between Spark nodes could manipulate heartbeat signals, potentially causing node disconnections or failovers, and alter application data, leading to incorrect analytics or decision-making. This could result in operational disruptions, data corruption, and loss of trust in data processing pipelines. Organizations using default configurations without explicit cipher settings are most at risk. Since Spark is widely used in big data environments, the impact could extend to cloud service providers and enterprises running large-scale analytics clusters. The vulnerability does not directly expose data confidentiality or availability but compromises data integrity, which is critical for compliance with European data protection regulations such as GDPR, where data accuracy and integrity are mandated. Additionally, disruption of critical infrastructure analytics could have broader economic or societal impacts.

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).
CWE-326Inadequate Encryption Strength (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
Architecture and Design
Use an encryption scheme that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field.
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)
V6.2.7 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Brute Force (opens in a new tab)
Protocol Analysis (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 22:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347, CWE-326

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats