CVE-2025-59248VulnerabilityPublished 14 Oct 2025Updated 22 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-59248: Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 23 · Improper Input Validation

Affects Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 23Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

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: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 63% 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:H/I:N/A:N/E:U/RL:O/RC:C

Base metrics

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

Temporal metrics

Exploit Code Maturity: Unproven
Remediation Level: Official Fix
Report Confidence: Confirmed

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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Exploit Code Maturity: Unproven: No exploit code is available, or an exploit is theoretical.
Remediation Level: Official Fix: A complete vendor solution is available. Either the vendor has issued an official patch, or an upgrade is available.
Report Confidence: Confirmed: Detailed reports exist, or functional reproduction is possible (functional exploits may provide this). Source code is available to independently verify the assertions of the research, or the author or vendor of the affected code has confirmed the presence of the vulnerability.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Microsoft Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Cumulative Update 23	Affected =15.01.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Monitor Microsoft security advisories closely and apply official patches or cumulative updates as soon as they become available for Exchange Server 2016 CU23. 2. Implement network-level protections such as email authentication protocols (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) to detect and block spoofed messages. 3. Use intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDS/IPS) to identify anomalous network traffic indicative of spoofing attempts. 4. Restrict external access to Exchange servers using firewalls and VPNs to limit exposure to untrusted networks. 5. Employ email gateway security solutions that perform advanced threat detection and validation of sender identities. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on email infrastructure to identify potential exploitation paths. 7. Educate users on recognizing spoofed emails and reporting suspicious activity promptly. 8. Consider deploying multi-factor authentication (MFA) for email access to reduce the impact of compromised credentials. 9. Maintain comprehensive logging and monitoring to enable rapid detection and response to exploitation attempts. These measures combined will reduce the attack surface and improve resilience against spoofing attacks exploiting this vulnerability.

Description

Improper input validation in Microsoft Exchange Server allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-59248 is on the confidentiality of communications handled by Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 CU23. By enabling spoofing attacks, an attacker can impersonate legitimate users or services, potentially intercepting sensitive information or deceiving recipients into accepting malicious content. This can lead to data leakage, phishing campaigns, or unauthorized access to internal communications. Although integrity and availability are not directly affected, the erosion of trust in email authenticity can disrupt business operations and lead to further social engineering or targeted attacks. Organizations with large Exchange Server deployments, especially those in sectors like finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, face heightened risks. The ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction increases the likelihood of attacks, which could be automated and widespread once exploit code becomes available. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for mitigation, but the vulnerability remains a significant threat to enterprise email security worldwide.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-59248 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 14:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats