CVE-2025-59345VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2025Updated 13 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-59345: dragonflyoss dragonfly · Missing Authentication

Affects dragonflyoss dragonflySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High : upgrade to 2.1.0 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.7High

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.1.0

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: 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: 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: 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: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · 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 17 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade dragonflyoss dragonfly to 2.1.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
dragonflyoss dragonfly	Affected <2.1.0	Fixed in 2.1.0

AI-suggested

1. Immediate upgrade to Dragonfly version 2.1.0 or later, which includes authentication protections on the Manager web UI endpoints. 2. Restrict network access to the Manager component by implementing strict firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure only to trusted administrative hosts. 3. Deploy network-level authentication and access controls such as VPNs or zero-trust network access (ZTNA) solutions to reduce unauthorized access risks. 4. Monitor Manager API endpoints for unusual activity patterns, such as a sudden surge in job creation requests, and implement rate limiting or anomaly detection. 5. Conduct regular audits of Dragonfly deployments to ensure no legacy versions remain in production. 6. Integrate Dragonfly monitoring with centralized security information and event management (SIEM) systems to enable rapid detection and response to potential exploitation attempts. 7. Educate operational teams about the vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include scenarios involving DoS attacks on infrastructure components like Dragonfly.

Description

Dragonfly is an open source P2P-based file distribution and image acceleration system. Prior to 2.1.0, The /api/v1/jobs and /preheats endpoints in Manager web UI are accessible without authentication. Any user with network access to the Manager can create, delete, and modify jobs, and create preheat jobs. An unauthenticated adversary with network access to a Manager web UI uses /api/v1/jobs endpoint to create hundreds of useless jobs. The Manager is in a denial-of-service state, and stops accepting requests from valid administrators. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.1.0.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability is on availability. Dragonfly is often used in cloud-native and containerized environments to accelerate image distribution and file delivery. A successful attack can incapacitate the Manager component, halting job processing and preheat operations, which may delay or disrupt application deployments and updates. This can lead to operational downtime, degraded service performance, and increased operational costs. Industries relying heavily on continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines, such as financial services, telecommunications, and cloud service providers, may experience significant disruptions. Additionally, the lack of authentication means that any attacker with network access—potentially even from within a compromised internal network segment—can exploit this vulnerability, increasing the risk of insider threats or lateral movement attacks. Although confidentiality and integrity are not directly compromised, the denial-of-service condition can indirectly affect business continuity and service reliability, which are critical for compliance with European regulations like GDPR and NIS Directive that mandate operational resilience.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (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 13 Oct 2025, 16:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats