CVE-2025-56608VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-56608: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 3 Sep 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.

India

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, developers should immediately replace the MD5 hashing algorithm with a secure, modern cryptographic hash function such as SHA-256 or better, ideally using HMAC (Hash-based Message Authentication Code) constructions for authentication tokens. The authentication mechanism should be redesigned to use proven standards like OAuth 2.0 or JWT with strong cryptographic protections. Implementing TLS for all communications is essential to prevent interception and replay attacks. Additionally, incorporating nonce values or timestamps in authentication requests can mitigate replay attacks. Regular security code reviews and static analysis should be conducted to detect weak cryptographic usage. For organizations deploying or relying on this app, it is critical to update to a patched version once available or discontinue use until remediation is complete. Monitoring for suspicious authentication attempts and enforcing multi-factor authentication where possible can further reduce risk. Finally, educating developers on secure cryptographic practices aligned with OWASP and MASVS guidelines will help prevent recurrence.

Description

The SourceCodester Android application "Corona Virus Tracker App India" 1.0 uses MD5 for digest authentication in `OkHttpClientWrapper.java`. The `handleDigest()` function employs `MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5")` to hash credentials. MD5 is a broken cryptographic algorithm known to allow hash collisions. This makes the authentication mechanism vulnerable to replay, spoofing, or brute-force attacks, potentially leading to unauthorized access. The vulnerability corresponds to CWE-327 and aligns with OWASP M5: Insufficient Cryptography and MASVS MSTG-CRYPTO-4.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends on the extent to which the affected application or its backend services are used within their operations or by their user base. If European healthcare providers, public health agencies, or related entities utilize this app or similar implementations, the risk includes unauthorized access to sensitive personal health information, undermining confidentiality and potentially violating GDPR requirements. Unauthorized access could also lead to data manipulation, affecting data integrity and the reliability of COVID-19 tracking information. This could erode public trust and disrupt health monitoring efforts. Additionally, if the app interfaces with broader health infrastructure or contact tracing systems, exploitation could facilitate lateral movement or further compromise. Even if the app is not widely used in Europe, the presence of such weak cryptographic practices in health-related apps signals a broader risk trend that European organizations should be vigilant about, especially given the sensitivity of health data and the regulatory environment.

CWE-290Authentication Bypass by Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V3.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Misrepresentation (opens in a new tab)
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (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 3 Sep 2025, 15:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-290

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats