CVE-2025-59270VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2025Updated 30 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59270: pspete psPAS · Algorithm Downgrade

Affects pspete psPASSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low · fixed in 7.0.209 : update pspete psPAS when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.209

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pspete psPAS	Affected =6.4.85	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should upgrade psPAS to version 7.0.209 or later, where TLS 1.2 enforcement is implemented to prevent downgrade attacks. Until upgrade, network-level mitigations include enforcing strict TLS policies on endpoints and network devices, disabling deprecated TLS versions (1.0 and 1.1) across the environment, and deploying TLS inspection tools to detect downgrade attempts. Additionally, organizations should monitor network traffic for unusual TLS negotiation patterns indicative of MitM attacks. Employing network segmentation and zero-trust principles can limit exposure of authentication traffic to untrusted networks. Regularly auditing PowerShell modules and scripts for outdated dependencies and enforcing secure coding practices around authentication workflows will reduce similar risks. Finally, educating security teams about the risks of algorithm downgrade attacks and ensuring incident response plans include TLS-related attack scenarios will improve preparedness.

Description

psPAS PowerShell module does not explicitly enforce TLS 1.2 within the 'Get-PASSAMLResponse' function during the SAML authentication process. An unauthenticated attacker in a 'Man-in-the-Middle' position could manipulate the TLS handshake and downgrade TLS to a deprecated protocol. Fixed in 7.0.209.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate confidentiality risk during the SAML authentication process when using the affected psPAS module version. Since psPAS is a PowerShell module used for privileged access management and automation, interception of authentication tokens or session data could lead to unauthorized access if attackers successfully downgrade TLS and capture sensitive information. However, the low CVSS score and absence of known exploits suggest limited immediate risk. Organizations relying on psPAS for critical identity and access management workflows may face increased exposure to MitM attacks on internal networks or less secure environments where TLS downgrade is feasible. The impact is more pronounced in sectors with stringent compliance requirements for secure authentication, such as finance, healthcare, and government. The vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly but could facilitate further attacks if attackers obtain authentication credentials or tokens.

CWE-757Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Client-Server Protocol Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
Weakening of Cellular Encryption (opens in a new tab)
Drop Encryption Level (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 1 Oct 2025, 00:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-757

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats