VulnerabilityPublished 24 Sep 2025Updated 25 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57354: Prototype Pollution

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 0.18.6 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.18.6

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

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

European organizations should take immediate steps to mitigate this vulnerability beyond generic patching advice. First, upgrade the 'counterpart' library to version 0.18.6 or later, where the input sanitization issue is addressed. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement input validation and sanitization at the application layer to reject or neutralize translation keys containing prototype chain elements such as '__proto__' or other special JavaScript object properties. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect and block suspicious payloads targeting prototype pollution patterns. Conduct thorough code reviews and static analysis to identify unsafe usage of the translate method with user-controlled inputs. Additionally, implement strict Content Security Policies (CSP) and sandboxing to limit the impact of potential remote code execution. Monitor application logs for unusual errors or crashes indicative of exploitation attempts. Finally, educate developers about secure coding practices related to prototype pollution and the risks of unsanitized input in JavaScript environments.

Description

A vulnerability exists in the 'counterpart' library for Node.js and the browser due to insufficient sanitization of user-controlled input in translation key processing. The affected versions prior to 0.18.6 allow attackers to manipulate the library's translation functionality by supplying maliciously crafted keys containing prototype chain elements (e.g., __proto__ ), leading to prototype pollution. This weakness enables adversaries to inject arbitrary properties into the JavaScript Object prototype through the first parameter of the translate method when combined with specific separator configurations, potentially resulting in denial-of-service conditions or remote code execution in vulnerable applications. The issue arises from the library's failure to properly validate or neutralize special characters in translation key inputs before processing.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a tangible risk, especially for those relying on the 'counterpart' library for localization in web applications or services. Exploitation could lead to denial-of-service attacks, disrupting service availability and causing operational downtime. More critically, if attackers chain this vulnerability with other weaknesses, they might achieve remote code execution, potentially compromising sensitive data or gaining persistent access. This is particularly concerning for sectors with stringent data protection requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government institutions within Europe. Additionally, compromised applications could be used as pivot points for broader network intrusions or supply chain attacks. Given the interconnected nature of European digital infrastructure and the regulatory environment (e.g., GDPR), such incidents could result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage.

CWE-1321Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution') (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
Implementation
By freezing the object prototype first (for example, Object.freeze(Object.prototype)), modification of the prototype becomes impossible.
Architecture and Design
By blocking modifications of attributes that resolve to object prototype, such as proto or prototype, this weakness can be mitigated.
Implementation · Input Validation
When handling untrusted objects, validating using a schema can be used.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (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 2 Oct 2025, 01:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1321

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats