CVE-2025-57817VulnerabilityPublished 8 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57817: ethyca fides · Missing Authorization

Affects ethyca fidesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High : upgrade to 2.69.1 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% 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:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

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

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: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 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.

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 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

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

The primary and most effective mitigation is to upgrade all Fides installations to version 2.69.1 or later, where the authorization checks have been properly implemented. Organizations should conduct an immediate inventory of affected Fides instances and prioritize patching. Beyond patching, organizations should enforce strict role-based access controls (RBAC) and audit permissions to ensure that only trusted users have `client:create` or `client:update` privileges, minimizing the risk of privilege escalation. Implementing comprehensive logging and monitoring of OAuth client creation and update activities can help detect anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should consider network segmentation and access restrictions to limit exposure of the Fides Webserver API to trusted networks and users only. Regular security reviews and penetration testing focused on authorization mechanisms can help identify similar weaknesses proactively. Finally, integrating multi-factor authentication (MFA) for privileged accounts can reduce the risk of credential compromise leading to exploitation.

Description

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. Prior to version 2.69.1, the OAuth client creation and update endpoints of the Fides Webserver API do not properly authorize scope assignment. This allows highly privileged users with `client:create` or `client:update` permissions to escalate their privileges to owner-level. Version 2.69.1 fixes the issue. No known workarounds are available.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-57817 can be significant, especially those handling sensitive personal data under strict regulatory frameworks such as the GDPR. Fides is used to manage privacy engineering workflows, including data inventory and compliance processes. An attacker exploiting this vulnerability could gain owner-level access, enabling them to alter or bypass privacy controls, manipulate data inventories, or disable compliance mechanisms. This could lead to unauthorized data disclosures, data integrity violations, and potential non-compliance with data protection laws, resulting in regulatory fines and reputational damage. Additionally, since Fides is often integrated into broader data governance ecosystems, compromise of its authorization controls could cascade, affecting other connected systems. The lack of user interaction and network-based exploitability means that attackers with existing elevated permissions can escalate privileges remotely, increasing the risk of insider threats or compromised privileged accounts being leveraged for further attacks.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats