VulnerabilityPublished 8 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57815: ethyca fides · Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts

Affects ethyca fidesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 1.7 Low : upgrade to 2.69.1 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

1.7Low

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.69.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 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

Upgrade ethyca fides to 2.69.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ethyca fides	Affected <2.69.1	Fixed in 2.69.1

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize upgrading Fides to version 2.69.1 or later to apply the official fix that introduces specific anti-automation controls. For those using the commercial Fides Enterprise edition, configuring Single Sign-On (SSO) through a trusted OIDC provider (e.g., Azure AD, Google Workspace, Okta) is strongly recommended to disable password-based authentication entirely, thereby eliminating the attack vector. Organizations should also enforce strong password policies, including complexity and rotation requirements, to reduce the risk of credential stuffing. Implementing account lockout policies or progressive delays after failed login attempts can further mitigate brute-force risks. Monitoring login attempts for anomalous patterns and integrating with Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems can help detect and respond to credential testing attacks promptly. For open-source users who cannot enable SSO, additional protective measures such as deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with bot detection capabilities or custom rate limiting per user account rather than per IP address should be considered. Regular security audits and penetration testing focused on authentication mechanisms will help identify residual weaknesses.

Description

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. Prior to version 2.69.1, the Fides Admin UI login endpoint relies on a general IP-based rate limit for all API traffic and lacks specific anti-automation controls designed to protect against brute-force attacks. This could allow attackers to conduct credential testing attacks, such as credential stuffing or password spraying, which poses a risk to accounts with weak or previously compromised passwords. Version 2.69.1 fixes the issue. For organizations with commercial Fides Enterprise licenses, configuring Single Sign-On (SSO) through an OIDC provider (like Azure, Google, or Okta) is an effective workaround. When OIDC SSO is enabled, username/password authentication can be disabled entirely, which eliminates this attack vector. This functionality is not available for Fides Open Source users.

Impact

For European organizations using Fides versions prior to 2.69.1, this vulnerability presents a risk of unauthorized account access through credential stuffing or password spraying attacks. While the CVSS score is low, the impact on confidentiality could be significant if attackers successfully compromise accounts, potentially exposing sensitive privacy engineering configurations or data. This is particularly relevant for organizations handling personal data under GDPR, where unauthorized access could lead to data breaches and regulatory penalties. The lack of specific anti-automation controls means that attackers can automate large-scale credential testing, increasing the likelihood of successful compromise if weak or reused passwords are present. The risk is higher for organizations that do not enforce strong password policies or multifactor authentication. However, the vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability directly, and exploitation does not require user interaction or privileges. The availability of SSO integration as a mitigation for enterprise customers reduces the risk for those organizations. Overall, the threat is moderate in impact but could be leveraged as an initial access vector in broader attack campaigns targeting European entities.

CWE-307Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
Architecture and Design
Common protection mechanisms include: Disconnecting the user after a small number of failed attempts; Implementing a timeout; Locking out a targeted account; Requiring a computational task on the user's part.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Password Spraying (opens in a new tab)
Credential Stuffing (opens in a new tab)
Use of Known Kerberos Credentials (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 16 Sep 2025, 01:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-307

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats