CVE-2025-58474VulnerabilityPublished 15 Oct 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-58474: F5 BIG-IP · Unthrottled Resource Allocation

Affects F5 BIG-IPSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 15 Oct 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 2026-10-25.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
F5 BIG-IP	Affected =17.1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-58474, organizations should first verify if they are running F5 BIG-IP version 17.1.0 with Advanced WAF configured with SSRF protection or NGINX with App Protect Bot Defense. Until official patches are released, consider the following specific actions: 1) Limit exposure of the affected virtual servers to untrusted networks by implementing strict network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access only to trusted sources. 2) Monitor traffic patterns closely for unusual request volumes or resource consumption spikes that may indicate exploitation attempts. 3) Adjust or disable SSRF protection or bot defense features temporarily if feasible and if they are suspected to contribute to resource exhaustion, balancing security needs with availability. 4) Implement rate limiting and connection throttling at upstream network devices or load balancers to prevent resource exhaustion from excessive requests. 5) Engage with F5 support and subscribe to their security advisories to receive timely updates and patches. 6) Conduct regular capacity planning and resource monitoring to detect and respond to abnormal resource usage promptly. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on configuration review, network controls, and proactive monitoring tailored to the affected features.

Description

When BIG-IP Advanced WAF is configured on a virtual server with Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection or when an NGINX server is configured with App Protect Bot Defense, undisclosed requests can disrupt new client requests. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-58474 is on the availability of services protected by F5 BIG-IP Advanced WAF and NGINX App Protect Bot Defense. Exploitation can lead to denial of service by exhausting resources allocated for handling client requests, disrupting legitimate traffic. This can cause downtime or degraded performance for web applications relying on these protections, potentially affecting business continuity and user experience. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and government that depend heavily on F5 BIG-IP for web application security and traffic management could face operational disruptions. Although confidentiality and integrity are not directly affected, the availability impact can indirectly lead to reputational damage and financial losses. The ease of exploitation (no authentication or user interaction required) increases the risk, especially in environments exposed to the internet. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild and the medium CVSS score suggest that while impactful, the threat is currently moderate but warrants proactive attention.

CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000148512 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 05:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats