CVE-2025-57319VulnerabilityPublished 24 Sep 2025Updated 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57319: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 3.5.1 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.5.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 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.

What to do

AI-suggested

1. Immediate code audit: Review all usage of the fast-redact package in your codebase, focusing on versions 3.5.0 and earlier. Identify if the nestedRestore function or related internal utilities are invoked with untrusted input. 2. Input validation: Implement strict validation and sanitization of all inputs that may reach the nestedRestore function or any redaction routines to prevent crafted payloads from reaching the vulnerable code path. 3. Dependency update: Monitor the fast-redact project for official patches or newer versions that address this vulnerability. Plan to upgrade as soon as a fixed version is released. 4. Temporary workaround: If upgrading is not immediately possible, consider isolating or sandboxing components that use fast-redact to limit the impact of potential DoS conditions. 5. Monitoring and detection: Deploy runtime monitoring to detect unusual application crashes or performance degradation that may indicate exploitation attempts. 6. Security testing: Conduct penetration testing and fuzzing focused on prototype pollution vectors targeting the redaction functionality. 7. Incident response readiness: Prepare response plans for denial of service incidents, including failover strategies and communication protocols. 8. Engage with suppliers: If using third-party software that depends on fast-redact, coordinate with vendors to understand their mitigation plans and timelines.

Description

fast-redact is a package that provides do very fast object redaction. A Prototype Pollution vulnerability in the nestedRestore function of fast-redact version 3.5.0 and before allows attackers to inject properties on Object.prototype via supplying a crafted payload, causing denial of service (DoS) as the minimum consequence. NOTE: the Supplier disputes this because the reporter only demonstrated access to properties by an internal utility function, and there is no means for achieving prototype pollution via the public API.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the adoption of the fast-redact package within their software stacks. Organizations using fast-redact in web applications, APIs, or backend services that process untrusted or external data inputs are at risk of denial of service attacks. Such attacks could disrupt critical services, leading to downtime, degraded user experience, and potential financial losses. Industries with high data sensitivity, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face operational disruptions if their redaction processes fail or cause application crashes. Additionally, denial of service can be leveraged as a vector for further attacks or to distract security teams. Given the nature of prototype pollution, there is also a theoretical risk that future exploit techniques could escalate the impact beyond DoS, although this has not been demonstrated. The dispute by the supplier suggests that exploitation might be limited or require specific conditions, but organizations should not dismiss the risk without thorough testing. The lack of patches means organizations must proactively assess and mitigate exposure. Overall, the threat poses a moderate to high operational risk, particularly for European entities relying on JavaScript-based redaction tools in their data processing pipelines.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…