CVE-2025-59410VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59410: dragonflyoss dragonfly · Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data

Affects dragonflyoss dragonflySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.1.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% 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:L/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: Low
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact 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 26 Oct 2026.

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

European organizations should immediately verify the version of Dragonfly deployed in their environments and upgrade to version 2.1.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, organizations should implement network-level mitigations such as enforcing TLS interception and inspection on internal networks to detect and block MitM attempts on HTTP traffic. Deploying strict network segmentation and monitoring for anomalous traffic patterns related to Dragonfly file downloads can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should consider restricting Dragonfly's network communications to trusted endpoints and use VPNs or encrypted tunnels to protect traffic. Incorporating integrity verification mechanisms such as cryptographic hashes or signatures on downloaded files can provide an additional layer of defense against tampering. Finally, security teams should update incident response playbooks to include detection and response procedures for potential exploitation of this vulnerability.

Description

Dragonfly is an open source P2P-based file distribution and image acceleration system. Prior to 2.1.0, the code in the scheduler for downloading a tiny file is hard coded to use the HTTP protocol, rather than HTTPS. This means that an attacker could perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack, changing the network request so that a different piece of data gets downloaded. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.1.0.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing Dragonfly versions prior to 2.1.0, this vulnerability presents a risk of data integrity compromise during file distribution and image acceleration processes. Since Dragonfly is used to optimize content delivery, any tampering with downloaded files could lead to corrupted data, deployment of malicious payloads, or disruption of services relying on these files. This could affect software supply chains, container image distribution, or internal content delivery networks. The exposure of unencrypted HTTP traffic also risks leakage of metadata or sensitive information about the files being requested, which could aid further attacks. Given the P2P nature of Dragonfly, the attack surface could be broad, especially in environments where network traffic is not fully controlled or monitored. European organizations in sectors such as software development, cloud services, media delivery, and any entity relying on Dragonfly for efficient file distribution could face operational disruptions or security breaches if this vulnerability is exploited. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often target supply chain components.

CWE-311Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Clearly specify which data or resources are valuable enough that they should be protected by encryption. Require that any transmission or storage of this data/resource should use well-vetted encryption algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to: Encryption that is needed to store or transmit private data of the users of the system; Encryption that is needed to protect the system itself from unauthorized disclosure or tampering
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Sniffing Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Sniffing Network Traffic (opens in a new tab)
Lifting Sensitive Data Embedded in Cache (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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 25 Sep 2025, 00:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-311

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats